Opponents of assisted dying vow to fight on as MPs back Bill
The Spen Valley MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result while Rebecca Wilcox, daughter of campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen, said it was 'wonderful' the result had come ahead of her mother's birthday.
But opponents vowed to fight on against what they called a 'deeply flawed Bill'.
A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care.
'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.'
But Ms Leadbeater told the PA news agency she hoped there would be no 'funny games' in the Lords, as her Bill faces further tough hurdles in the upper chamber.
She added: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, described its supporters as 'enemies', saying he felt 'like Evelyn Waugh at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939'.
In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
He added: 'It's the revenge of the middle-aged against their dependents.'
Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill will now proceed to the House of Lords, where it will undergo further scrutiny before becoming law, should peers decide to back the legislation.
But some peers have already spoken out against the legislation, with the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, saying they 'must oppose' the Bill as 'unworkable and unsafe'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's rewilding plans risk surge in wildfires
Labour's rewilding plans risk sparking a surge in wildfires across Britain, gamekeepers have warned. The Government is proposing to ban winter burning – a traditional upland management technique that reduces the amount of fuel for potential fires – from more than half of all peatland in England. It is claimed the changes will help to 're-wet' Britain's peat bogs, reduce the risk of wildfires and cut carbon emissions. Environmentalists want to preserve peat bogs because they soak up vasts quantities of carbon. But landowners and gamekeepers have warned that, far from protecting the environment, the burning restrictions will instead leave Britain's moors and heaths at the mercy of wildfires that will be 'too large to fight'. Winter burns create firebreaks in upland areas by forming strips where there is less flammable foliage, thereby limiting the speed at which wildfires can spread. But in 2021, the burns were banned from areas of 'deep peat' – where it extends for 40cm or deeper – in conservation areas, totalling 222,000 hectares of land. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now consulting on plans to extend the burning restrictions to 368,000 hectares of peat by lowering the threshold for 'deep peat' to 30cm. The department argues that wetter peat will reduce the chance of wildfires. But gamekeepers have warned the changes would leave swathes of the countryside vulnerable. Richard Bailey, a gamekeeper and co-ordinator of the Peak District Moorland Group, told The Telegraph the plans risked turning upland areas into a 'massive tinderbox'. Andrew Gilruth, chief executive of the Moorland Association, said: 'This is our worst ever year for wildfires. Britain is burning because of the religion of rewilding. 'It is obvious to everyone bar Natural England that, with climate change making vegetation tinder-dry, increasing this fuel load through rewilding is a really stupid idea. It make for bigger, more intense blazes which can move at frightening speed.' 'I think the whole thing is very concerning – not just from a loss-of-habitat point of view, but also putting firefighters and land managers in real danger from the inevitable wildfires. 'The whole thing is becoming a massive tinderbox and a bomb that is going off. At the moment, re-wetting is increasing the fuel level on the moors and that is a real concern. Prescribed burning will not stop wildfires, but it reduces the length of flames and allows fires to be contained quicker.' Other proposed changes would remove an exemption to the restrictions that allowed burns to continue on land 'inaccessible' to mowing and cutting equipment, either because it was too steep or too rocky. Proposals reveal 'staggering lack of knowledge' Defra said in its consultation that burns should be a 'last resort', despite G7 leaders having backed 'controlled burning' as a means of preventing wildfires in June. Donald Trump also issued an executive order that month reducing restrictions on 'prescribed fires' for 'common-sense wildfire prevention'. Adrian Blackmore, the director of shooting at the Countryside Alliance, said Defra's plans to restrict burns – which remove the top layer of heather without damaging the roots or peat underneath – were 'staggering'. 'They are showing a staggering lack of understanding or knowledge,' he said. 'Burns reduce the fire load, encourage young growth for the birds to eat and encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which is the peat-forming moss. 'So if you don't remove the canopy, you can't encourage sphagnum moss, because it's not going to grow underneath it. And sphagnum moss is the be-all and end-all, making moors wetter.' In recent years, there has been a series of large wildfires in upland areas where winter burns were restricted – including the Saddleworth Moor blaze in 2018, where wildfires had been limited to once every two decades. This summer, large wildfires have broken out on Langdale Moor, in North Yorkshire, and Marsden Moor, in West Yorkshire. Scotland's largest ever wildfires have also taken place in the Cairngorms. Gamekeepers in Scotland have warned that they will no longer help to put out moorland wildfires if restrictions on peat burns are introduced. From January next year, gamekeepers would have to measure the depth of the peat before applying for licences to conduct 'muirburns'. Craig Hepburn, a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's youth committee, said: 'As people, it goes against the grain for us to turn our backs on anyone but, if Government is going to tie us in knots when we are trying to help, why should folk keep putting their lives at risk?' A spokesman for Defra said: 'Our peatlands are home to Britain's most precious wildlife, while also storing carbon and reducing flooding risk. 'With 13 per cent of the world's blanket bog in the UK, we've consulted on ways to ensure these rare habitats are better protected. We will set out our response in due course.' John Clarke, of the National Gamekeepers' Association, said the Defra plans would 'spell disaster'. 'Many areas of the uplands are inaccessible by tractors and other vehicles, meaning that cutting or mowing of vegetation is nigh-on impossible, and controlled burning is the only option,' he said. 'This summer we have experienced a large number of wildfires up and down the country; this year so far has in fact seen the most wildfires on record. These wildfires come at a huge cost not only to our ground nesting red listed birds, but also to the public purse. 'The notion of increasing the restrictions on where burning can take place will spell disaster and will only increase incidents of wildfire in the future.'
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The tax traps Reeves must fix to grow the economy
It is no secret that Rachel Reeves is strapped for cash. Against a backdrop of rising inflation and weak growth, the Chancellor is staring down a black hole that some predict could be as high as £50bn. Worse still, some efforts to save money have already been killed off by Labour backbenchers, while bond market vigilantes have driven up Britain's borrowing costs to their highest level since the 1990s. That is without even taking into account the impact of Reeves's Budget tax raid last year, which has crushed business confidence and dampened investment. All of which means that the Chancellor is now scrambling for reforms that will boost the economy at minimal cost. Here are some of her options. Clean up the income tax trap The top rate of income tax is supposed to be 45pc, but for those earning between £100,000 and just over £125,000, it is in effect 60pc. That is because workers in this bracket lose the tax-free allowance, which applies to the first £12,570 of pay for workers on lower incomes. As a result, it can appear rather unattractive to earn more if most of this extra income will be taken by the taxman. 'Where we have these kinks in the income tax schedule, those will tend to act as a disincentive to people to work more – I might not want to take that promotion, or I might want to go four days a week,' says Isaac Delestre, at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Scrapping this baffling tax quirk would help ease the pain. Smooth out benefits Losing child benefit can see families' effective tax rate rise to almost 60pc. This applies when one parent in a three-child household earns between £60,000 and £80,000. Believe it or not, that is an improvement on the old situation. Before Conservative reforms, a family with three children faced a tax rate of more than 70pc. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor at the time, called the system 'confusing and unfair'. Following changes introduced by the Tories, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated reforms would encourage parents to work more hours, amounting to the equivalent of an extra 10,000 full-time jobs. However, perhaps the most egregious tax trap applies to adults with young children. The Government has ramped up subsidies for childcare in recent years to try to get more parents back to work. Yet for a cohort of highly productive workers, the way the system operates can be an enormous disincentive to seek out a promotion or put in extra hours. That is because the support schemes are withdrawn entirely once one parent's taxable income rises above £100,000. It means an extra penny of earnings can cost a family with two young children £14,500 in disposable income, according to the IFS. The think tank estimates that their disposable income – after tax and childcare – will not recover to its previous level until the parent earns £134,500. These parents have an enormous incentive to cut their taxable income, whether by pouring money into their pension to reduce their taxable income or by cutting the number of days they work each week. Turning the cliff edge into a smooth slope might cost the Treasury money, but would no doubt ease families' worries. Ramp up VAT Companies face similar cliff edges. Small businesses have to register for VAT when their turnover hits £90,000. That creates a huge incentive to stay below that threshold. Businesses and sole traders often stop earning once they edge closer to the limit as they seek to avoid the threat of introducing a 20pc tax on sales. Whether that means working only four days a week or closing for a month to keep takings down, it undermines growth in their business and the wider economy. The Conservatives cited this 'bunching' as a reason to raise the threshold from £85,000, but that just shifted the problem instead of abolishing it. Slashing the threshold would be a blow to small businesses and their customers, but might encourage more growth in the long term by removing it as a barrier altogether. That was the argument of the Resolution Foundation when it was run by Torsten Bell, now a Treasury minister. The think tank previously called the high threshold 'a tax on growth', claiming that: 'The best outcome would be lowering it to the point where almost no business owner would consider the option of deliberately staying below that level of turnover.' Cutting it to £30,000 could raise £1.5bn for Reeves. Cut stamp duty To say that reform of property tax is overdue is an understatement. The IFS has described council tax, which is still based on valuations from 1991, as 'out of date, regressive and distortionary'. The think tank has also branded stamp duty one of Britain's most hated taxes because it penalises people for moving. Back in 1988, a typical homeowner moved house every nine years, according to property website Zoopla. In the first six months of 2022, the gap was 21 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously urged the UK to move away from 'transaction taxes which constrain housing and labour mobility'. Instead of a property sales tax, the Fund suggested adopting a new annual levy based on land or property values – a system some argue this would be fairer. After all, the average London house price is now more than seven times what it was in 1991, compared with a four-fold increase in the North East, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the distribution of central government funding to local authorities is still based on property values in 1991. This effectively means councils in Newcastle must now levy more tax on a property worth £250,000 than in Kensington and Chelsea to deliver essentially the same on valuations. However, as the think tank points out, any major revaluation would produce winners and losers. Back in 2020, the IFS suggested that a simple revaluation that reflected relative increases in property values would hit homeowners primarily in London and the South East. Back then, it said residents in Hackney and Wandsworth could see increases in their bills of up to 45pc, while people living in Fylde near Blackpool could see a 15pc reduction. A more radical reform that linked bills proportionally to a property's value could see bills in Stoke-on-Trent slashed in half. But it would also see bills quadruple in Kensington and almost double in parts of Surrey. There was a reason that Margaret Thatcher backed away from a poll tax. ... and planning red tape It is not just moving house that matters. Building them would boost the economy too. That is why bats and newts are high up on Reeves's hit list. The Chancellor has repeatedly grumbled about the many obstacles to getting things built in Britain, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails'. She has a point. In a now infamous example, the chairman of the HS2 rail line admitted it was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. Sir John Thompson said this was just one example of 8,276 'consents' required from public bodies, and expressed frustration at red tape across the UK. Reeves also knows there is a big prize on offer if she manages to reduce bureaucracy. The OBR said Labour's planning reforms were already expected to drive an increase in housebuilding of 170,000 homes until the end of the decade, which would in turn increase Britain's medium-term growth prospects by 0.2pc. Reeves has since ordered officials in the Treasury to go further. Prepare for more red tape to be slashed.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters
The co-leadership contender argued that the party needs to shift the perception that it is for the middle-class, and that it should 'tailor its messages better' to attract working-class voters. Mackay, MSP for Central Scotland, is currently on maternity leave taking care of her seven-week-old son Callan, and told The National the party needs to offer policies that fit the needs of the young people they targeted a decade ago – who are now likely to be in their 30s, getting married and starting families. Mackay is vying for one of two co-leadership positions, with Lorna Slater, Dominic Ashmole and Ross Greer also in the running. It will be the first time in 17 years that Patrick Harvie has not held one of the top jobs. The MSP said that it is going to be a 'big change', but that it was time for a 'generational shift' as the party looks ahead to the next Scottish Parliament election. READ MORE: Labour refuse to release files on secret meeting with Gideon Sa'ar 'I think it is time to now grow with those young people that we were targeting 10 years ago, because we now have children, or folk are getting married and having families and all that sort of thing,' she explained. 'And while we've always got that sort of young demographic targeted pretty well, we haven't quite grown with the people that we were capturing back then. 'For me, it's about that change and how we make that step forward with people. 'I think there's a lot of our policies around families that we should be refreshing and renewing and bringing to the fore to keep those people with us. 'And again, there's a demographic beyond those young people that came into the party that would absolutely benefit from this and see this and maybe convince them to vote for us.' (Image: PA) Mackay added that the party needs to look outside of the 'stereotypical middle class demographic' that the Greens are 'painted as chasing'. Based in Grangemouth, the town where she grew up, Mackay insists that there are 'benefits' the party can bring to communities outside of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the party tends to get most of its support and has its largest base of activists. 'I think sometimes we talk at such a technical, high level – folk actually want to know what they're going to see, hear, feel, experience in their communities, as a result of whatever it is that we're putting forward,' she said. 'I think some of that is we need to simplify the concept of what we're putting forward, rather than talking about all these really high level things, which has its place, but when we're communicating with voters, I think it needs to be much plainer and go outside of that typical heartland that we've got.' Mackay believes that making sure policies to tackle climate change are 'woven' through every portfolio, such as health and education, is part of the solution to expanding the voter base. That, and the party needs to 'tailor our messages better', she adds. READ MORE: Just 7 per cent of Edinburgh TV Festival panellists based in Scotland Mackay explained: 'Politics can often be, how general can we get it to apply to as many people as humanly possible? And that doesn't then serve those communities who do have those differences. A working-class community in rural Highland is very different to Grangemouth, and they do need different things from us as the Greens, but also from politics in general. 'I do think we need to tailor that message. It's giving branches and activists that support to be able to pick up bits of what we're doing nationally. 'Not everything applies to everywhere. We've done things on mountain hares that will play far better in Highland than it will in Falkirk or North Lanarkshire. 'That's not that people don't care about wee fluffy bunnies across the country, but there are places where it's more tangible, more real, and it's happening on people's doorsteps.' Mackay added that in her role as health spokesperson, she looked at how to make prescriptions greener through recycling projects, and how to expand the lifespan of machinery used in the health service. 'Medicine is a huge source of waste within the NHS, and [it's about] how we make medicines greener and have less emissions,' she added. 'I think there's elements that we can weave through every single portfolio to be talking about climate a lot more than we actually are.' With the looming threat of Nigel Farage's Reform UK playing a significant role in the upcoming election campaign, Mackay insists that the party needs to make its policies 'tangible' as an antithesis to far-right talking points and ensure that they are 'easy to understand'. She explained: 'We need to fight fire with fire, and get to those communities and say, 'Well, this is what we've been talking about, 'but this is what it means for you'. 'Because at the moment, I think there are some of our policies that people might not be able to explain what the benefit would be to them.'
