TOM HARRIS: Better to have no law change than be saddled with another bad one
It is rare for our politicians to be invited to cast a vote on a subject as profound as life and death.
But today, Scotland's MSPs will do just that, deciding whether a Bill to allow assisted dying will progress through parliament.
It is a subject that has already created bitter divisions in England, with the House of Commons scrutinising a private members' Bill that is due to return to the floor of the House shortly.
For decades various charities and pressure groups have demanded a review of existing law which prohibits terminally ill people seeking to end their lives – and their suffering – prematurely.
Those desperate enough and wealthy enough have occasionally gone abroad to jurisdictions like Switzerland where the state allows adults to seek to end their own lives. But to attempt to do so anywhere in the UK risks prosecution and jail.
Among those Scots who feel strongly about the issue one way or the other, tensions are high as the initial vote at Holyrood draws nearer.
For some, the right to end one's own life, especially when illness has drastically lowered your quality of life, is a human right, one that is necessary to a dignified death as well as life.
For opponents, any change in the law would fundamentally change the relationship between the state and the citizen, and in particular the relationship between the medical profession and a patient.
They fear that Scotland could well end up allowing those without long-term physical conditions – for example, those with mental illnesses such as depression – to choose to die. And they have warned that older people in need of long-term care could feel pressured to choose the 'easy way out' for the sake of their family, rather than endure years of palliative care.
It is not a debate that can have any morally robust conclusion, other than a legislative one that angers as many as it satisfies. As an MP I opposed changing the law, but it would be wrong to say that I felt particularly strongly about the topic, recognising that there were strong and sincerely-held opinions on either side of the debate.
Ultimately, I listened to the advice of colleagues and friends. The late David Cairns, who, despite having been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest before becoming the MP for Inverclyde, never allowed his faith to dictate policy, told me that he did not believe in the 'slippery slope' theory of politics, except in this one case. I agreed with him.
This is the greatest concern for many who oppose the current attempt to legislate. Who is to say that once this massive change in the law is made, further, incremental changes might not be made to expand the scope of the legislation?
Why must you be suffering from a terminal condition to access assisted dying? After all, a permanent, agonising condition, mental or physical, that is not life-threatening is, arguably, less tolerable than a terminal condition.
And where does that lead any society?
But those on the other side of the debate are similarly sincere and have at their disposal a number of strong arguments too.
Tales of dreadfully ill, pain-infused family members and friends who desperately want to end it all can hardly fail to elicit the sympathy of even the most hard-headed opponents of the right to die.
And so the debate will continue, whatever happens at Holyrood today. My own view, that the top of that slippery slope is perilously close to where we would be if this Bill becomes law, has not changed, though I sympathise with those who disagree. But my concerns go further than the actual principle of this Bill.
Holyrood has proved itself to be less than competent when it comes to legislating in controversial areas.
Remember the Gender Recognition Reform Bill? The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill? The abandoned Named Person legislation? To be frank, I do not trust our MSPs to frame legislation in such a delicate and important area.
There is a stronger case for any such legislation to be UK-wide, or at least Britain-wide. We must not institutionalise separate jurisdictions that might encourage people living on either side of the border to travel north or south to take advantage of a more lenient legal framework.
That is why drugs policy remains – and must remain – reserved to the UK parliament. That's why abortion law should have remained at Westminster, rather than being used as a political football by the Smith Commission when it was deciding which new areas of policy should be devolved to Scotland back in 2015.
Do we really want to see ill and vulnerable people encouraged to move from or to Scotland in order to seek the state's help to die? That is hardly the bright future that the advocates of devolution promised in the 1980s and '90s.
Better to have no change in law at all than to be saddled with another bad one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
38 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.
