Will the assisted dying vote be delayed?
All is not well with the Labour lot. It has emerged that more than 50 lefty MPs submitted a letter to the Leader of the Commons, Lucy Powell, at the weekend – demanding she intervene to delay this Friday's final third reading vote on Kim Leadbeater's controversial assisted dying bill. The letter blasts the limited opportunities afforded to parliamentarians to speak on the bill and fumes that 'several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid'. Oo er.
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
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump to force NHS to pay for wonder drugs
NHS patients have been given new hope of accessing wonder drugs previously blocked in Britain as Donald Trump pressures the health service to spend more with US suppliers. Ministers are understood to be reviewing the value-for-money rules that govern which drugs the NHS can buy, amid demands from the Trump administration for the UK to be more welcoming to US pharmaceutical companies. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that this could result in the NHS paying more for US drugs to see off criticism of the differences in medicine prices between the two nations. However, it is understood that discussions include not only paying more for treatments already supplied on the NHS but also making it easier for US drug giants to sell their most cutting-edge treatments to the health service. It follows a wave of high-profile rejections of so-called 'wonder' drugs in recent years. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which approves new NHS drugs for purchase, has blocked treatments including one which stopped the progression of Alzheimer's disease and another that doubled the life expectancy for terminal breast cancer patients. Nice has rejected them based on assessments of how long they would extend a patient's lifespan and improve quality of life. To qualify under Nice rules a new treatment must deliver one extra year of perfect health, or longer for less perfect health, for no more than £30,000. This figure has not increased in line with inflation since 1999. If it had, it would be just over £53,000. Nice has maintained that, to get approval for use on the NHS, medicines 'must not only provide benefits to patients but also represent a good use of NHS resources and taxpayers' money'. However, critics say a failure to raise the threshold in-line with inflation meant life-changing drugs were being blocked. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: 'There is growing evidence that it is becoming harder to bring new medicines to NHS patients. Increasingly, some new medicines may not be launched in the UK at all.' Companies including US giant Eli Lilly have said the regulator must rethink how 'value-for-money' is assessed. On Monday, a spokesman for the company said: 'The UK has historically focused on medicines as a cost to the NHS rather than evaluating their social and economic value.' Ministers are understood to be listening to demands from the industry for Nice to shake up its formula, with medicines such as AstraZeneca's breast cancer treatment Enhertu likely to be resubmitted for approval for NHS use if the formula is updated. Nice and AstraZeneca previously failed to reach an agreement over a price for the drug, which costs an estimated £118,000 per course of treatment. The NHS typically gets discounts, although the level is commercially sensitive. The Nice formula is being discussed after President Trump took a personal interest in the NHS issue. In trade documents between the US and UK, it said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that sees companies pay revenue back to the NHS if costs rise faster than expected. Drug companies paid £3bn back to the NHS last year. In April, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was proud that the UK had kept prices of medicines low. However, he admitted that the UK had become too focused on cost rather than the benefits in some cases. Mr Streeting said: 'We've moved from quite rightly trying to drive a good bargain on the price of drugs and treatment to a position where sometimes people view medicine spend as a dead weight cost'.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MPs set to approve biggest change to UK abortion law in 50 years decriminalising termination at any point before birth
MPs will vote on decriminalising abortion tomorrow with the Commons expected to back the biggest change to abortion law in Britain for half a century. If approved by MPs women would no longer face prosecution if they aborted their own baby based on its sex, after the legal limit of 24 weeks, or without approval from doctors. The vote is shaping up to be fractious with two Labour MPs who are both seeking to decriminalise abortion competing to have amendments that will radically alter the law selected. Currently abortion is a criminal offence in England and Wales unless it takes place before 24 weeks into a pregnancy and with the approval of doctors. There are limited circumstances allowing a woman to access an abortion after 24 weeks, including when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. But the two amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that will be debated and voted on by MPs tomorrow would put an end to this. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is expected to select just one of the two amendments, leaving the MPs behind them competing to show who had the most support tonight. One of the amendments, from Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, is seeking to decriminalise abortion for women 'acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. This legislation would amend the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlaws abortion - meaning it would no longer apply to women aborting their own babies. However Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would maintain sections that allow criminal prosecutions for doctors who carry out abortions beyond the current 24-week legal limit or abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. A second amendment, from Labour MP Stella Creasy, would also repeal the sections of the 1861 Act, decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks, and ensure that late-term abortions did not result in prison sentences. However Ms Creasy's amendment would go further still and make it a human right for women to access abortion so that parliament could not, in future, roll back abortion rights as has happened in other countries. Crucially, this amendment would also repeal certain abortion-related criminal laws, meaning that medical professionals who assisted with an abortion would not face prosecution either. Sir Lindsay is only expected to select one of the two amendments and as Ms Antoniazzi's had more than 170 backers last night - compared to over 110 for Ms Creasy's - it is expected that hers will be debated and voted on by MPs on Tuesday. It comes as a legal opinion commissioned by Tory veteran Edward Leigh said that if either amendment becomes law women will be able to abort their pregnancies for any reason at any point up to birth without facing prosecution. The legal opinion by leading criminal barrister Stephen Rose KC - seen by the Mail - said that Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would mean that it would no longer be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion 'at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth'. But Mr Rose KC said this amendment would still retain criminal prosecution for medical professionals who assisted in an abortion beyond the current legal limit. However he said that Ms Creasy's amendment would go further, rendering the 24-week time limit 'obsolete', and would mean that medical practitioners who helped with an illegal abortion would only face disciplinary proceedings through their professional body rather than prosecution. The legal opinion said it would also effectively allow abortions to be carried out based on the sex of the foetus, adding: 'The effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.'
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
