Proposed four-year wait for assisted dying service ‘too long,' say campaigners
Campaigners have criticised a move to double the length of time before an assisted dying service would be functioning if a new law is agreed in England and Wales.
The proposed change has been branded a 'retrograde step' and 'outrageous' by two terminally ill supporters of legalising assisted dying.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is entering the final stages of committee scrutiny, before it is expected to return to the House of Commons for another vote by all MPs, possibly next month.
As it stands, the legislation has an implementation period of two years after it is passed into law for all parts to come into force.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater - who is behind the Bill - has now put forward an amendment, expected to be debated next week, proposing to extend that to four years.
Pro-change group My Death, My Decision said that is an 'unreasonable' amount of time.
Mother-of-two Clare Turner, who has stage four cancer, said the proposed change is 'outrageous for terminally ill people like me'.
She added: 'Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will.'
She said she and others 'deserve dignity, not delays'.
In quotes released through the campaign group, fellow terminally ill cancer patient Tim Wardle said the proposed extension 'would be a retrograde step, contrary to the core intent and messages of the Bill – care and choice'.
He said terminally ill people have 'waited far too long for this legislation' already and that 'even a slight delay beyond the two years currently proposed is not fair or reasonable'.
Giving evidence to the committee earlier this year, England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty said he thought two years 'seems a reasonable starting point' but that he does not believe there should be a 'firm deadline', with the focus instead on providing a 'safe, fair and secure service'.
Meanwhile, opponents of the Bill have claimed legislation is being rushed through and has not been exposed to proper scrutiny.
A group of experts, led by disability studies scholarDr Miro Griffiths from the University of Leeds, have written to MPs urging them to vote against a Bill they said is 'beset by issues'.
The group highlighted the change earlier this month, which saw MPs on the committee vote to scrap the previously hailed requirement for a High Court judge to approve all assisted dying applications.
They said the Bill is 'an altogether different and less robust piece of legislation as a consequence of its being removed'.
Ms Leadbeater's proposals to instead establish a voluntary assisted dying commissioner – a judge or former judge – and expert panels featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker who would decide on assisted dying applications, are expected to be voted on next week.
In their letter to MPs, Dr Griffiths and other specialists in disability, law and medicine, wrote: 'In our view, Kim Leadbeater's Bill is beset by issues that would translate into serious public harm, should it be passed into law. We would urge you to reflect on the issues above and vote down the Bill at Third Reading.'
Ms Leadbeater has insisted the amendments she has put forward will give her Bill 'additional patient-centred safeguards' by providing a 'range of expertise' via the three-member panel, which she said 'is a strength, not a weakness'.
She said she had 'listened carefully' to expert evidence in January on concerns around the pressure on judicial resources if each case was to automatically go before the High Court, and on calls to involve psychiatrists and social workers in assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Swinney – Reform voters in Hamilton by-election ‘angry', not racist
The First Minister was asked on the BBC Scotland's Sunday Show if those who backed Reform were 'gullible' or 'racist' – a term the SNP leader has previously used to describe the party. Mr Swinney said the 7,088 people who backed Reform – more than a quarter of the vote – in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse ballot were 'neither', but were instead 'angry at the cost-of-living crisis'. He added: 'I think that's what motivates the Reform vote. People have got poorer because of one central thing – Brexit, and the author of that is (Reform UK leader Nigel) Farage. 'I'm standing up to Farage. I'm going to make no apology for it.' He said the SNP is 'in the process of recovery' and he had come into office as First Minister a year ago 'inheriting some significant difficulties' within the party, and that it needs to get stronger before the Holyrood election in 2026. He said voters are 'having to work hard for less' and are concerned about public services, particularly the NHS. Mr Swinney was asked about comments he made prior to the vote saying 'Labour were not at the races' and claiming it was a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform. Labour's Davy Russell gained the seat from the SNP with 8,559 votes, while SNP candidate Katy Loudon came second on 7,957, ahead of Reform's Ross Lambie. The First Minister said that since the general election campaign last year, people he has met have pledged never to vote Labour due to the winter fuel allowance being cut, while Reform's support increased. Mr Swinney said: 'People were telling us on the doorsteps, they were giving us reasons why they weren't supporting Labour. We could also see that Farage's support was rising dramatically and that's happening across the United Kingdom, it's not unique to Hamilton. 'I positioned the SNP to be strong enough to stop Farage, and that's what we were determined to do.' Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has branded the SNP's campaign 'dishonest and disgraceful' and said it had put the spotlight on Reform. Those comments were put to the First Minister, who said he had previously been allies with Mr Sarwar in a campaign to 'stand up to far-right thinking'. Mr Swinney said: 'That was months ago and then we found ourselves in the aftermath of the UK local authority elections, the English local authority elections where Farage surged to a leading position and won a by-election south of the border. 'So the dynamic of our politics change in front of us. 'I've been standing up to Farage for months, I've been warning about the dangers of Farage for months, and they crystallised in the rise of Farage during the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall by-election.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The winners and losers in Labour's first spending review
When Rachel Reeves publishes the government's spending review on Wednesday, the stories the Treasury will want to tell are the energy, transport and other infrastructure projects that will get a share of the big boost in capital funding – £113bn. They will argue that cash, freed up by the change to the fiscal rules in the budget, could only have happened under Labour and was opposed by the Tories and Reform. But the capital spending cannot stop expected cuts in day-to-day spending, meaning extremely tight settlements for departments, with savings expected from policing budgets, local government, civil service cuts, foreign aid, education and culture. Treasury sources said they would still spend £190bn more over the five-year parliament than the Conservatives' spending plans – meaning more than £300bn will be distributed among departments. Real-terms spending will grow at an average of 1.2% a year over the three years that the spending review period covers, a significant drop from the first two years when it will be 2.5%. Even that figure does not tell the full story because of the disproportionate boost being given to defence and the NHS – and has led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to warn that the spending commitments will require 'chunky tax rises' in the autumn, when coupled with other expected priorities such as restoring the winter fuel allowance to more pensioners and action on child poverty such as ending the two-child benefit limit. Here are some of the key offers from the spending review – and the rows over cuts. The biggest row of the spending review has been between Reeves and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, over policing, which one source describes as being a 'huge headache'. Cooper has brought out the big guns to make her case, first with a letter from six police chiefs who warned that without more funding the government would not meet its manifesto promises on crime. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, and other senior police officers have also written to the prime minister to warn him that investment was need to prevent some crimes being routinely ignored. It is understand the policing budget will not face real terms cuts but the level of spending is still under discussion. The Home Office is under strain as a major spending department that is key to some of the most ambitious manifesto pledges – including halving knife crime, police recruitment, reducing violence against women and girls as well as dealing with monitoring offenders who will be released earlier due to sentencing changes. The other major spending review row is over deep dissatisfaction from Angela Rayner – the deputy prime minister and housing secretary – with the level of funding for social homes in the spending review, making her one of the last remaining holdouts in negotiations with the Treasury over departmental spending settlements. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for more funding for the affordable homes programme as well as trying to preserve cash for local councils, homelessness and regional growth initiatives. The Treasury had previously put £2bn into affordable housing, described as a 'down payment' on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes. However, the next phase of funding has caused a major rift with Rayner – and more so because capital spending on infrastructure such as housing is meant to be a priority. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, is said to have been holding out for a big capital injection to fund flood defences. The autumn budget said the government was facing significant funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600m in 2024-25, and that those schemes would have to be reviewed for their affordability. Sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed a post-Brexit farming fund would be cut in the review. Labour promised a fund of £5bn over two years – from 2024 to 2026 – at the budget, which is being honoured, but in the years after that it will be slashed for all but a few farms. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, had a long fight to keep cash for a major programme of insulation, which was a key part of the government's net zero strategy. However, there are reports suggesting other schemes could be scaled back to protect the insulation programme. At the October budget, Reeves announced £3.4bn over three years for household energy efficiency schemes, heat decarbonisation and fuel poverty schemes. The government responded to concerns expressed at the time calling the sum the 'bare minimum' and promising a spending uplift at the review. Miliband's department is expected to get significant capital investment in energy infrastructure including nuclear – with the government poised to give the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear plant. The chancellor has already announced £15bn in transport spending across the north of England, funds which she said fulfil promises made by the Conservatives to the country but which the party had no way to pay for them in its own plan. Wes Streeting's department is set to be one of the big winners of the spending review and it will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan, which will be published imminently after the spending review. The department will get one of the biggest boosts to funding as others face real-terms cuts. The funding for the plan prioritises three key areas, moving care from hospitals to communities, increasing the use of technology, and prioritising prevention. No 10 and Streeting hope that the 10-year plan will contain major commitments and a positive story that the government will finally be able to tell properly on improvements to the health service – though any good news could be scuppered by the ballot for strike action by resident doctors. Still, Streeting's department was one of the last to settle formally with the Treasury due to negotiations over drug prices, though departmental sources downplayed any specific row. Any child in England whose parents receive universal credit will be able to claim free school meals from September 2026, the government has said. Parents on the credit will be eligible regardless of their income. The government says the change will make 500,000 more pupils eligible. A Department for Education (DfE) source said it was the best measure outside welfare changes to address child poverty and that the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, had consistently fought to protect school food programmes through each round of spending negotiations. But schools budgets will be squeezed. Teachers will get a 4% pay rise next year, with additional funding of £615m. But schools will still have to fund about a quarter of the rise themselves – a total of £400m from their current budgets. Phillipson has tasked the DfE with finding savings in schools budgets, such as energy bills. Savings will also come as the government is removing public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which has drawn criticism from skills experts. The justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was one of the first to reach her settlement to allow her to announce a £4.7bn plan to build three new prisons starting this year, part of a 'record expansion' as the government attempts to get to grips with the prison crisis. The early announcement was essential because it came alongside an announcement that the government would put a limit on how long hundreds of repeat offenders can be recalled to prison amid Whitehall predictions that jails will be full again in November.
