Wes Streeting warns there is no money in the NHS for assisted dying and helping people to end their lives will mean cuts to treatment for the living
The Health Secretary has warned that legalising assisted dying could take NHS money away from medical treatment for the living.
Wes Streeting, who opposed the suicide law change passed by MPs last week, said getting the system up and running would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service.
He said that said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life.
MPs on Friday voted by a majority of just 23 to allow medical professionals to help people die, under a system expected to start operating by the end of the decade.
But having been passed by the Commons the legislation faces a tricky passage through the Lords, which calls for them to either make major changes or block it altogether.
Mr Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups.
He cited a warning from ex-PM Gordon Brown that 'there is no effective freedom to choose' if there is no high quality palliative care available, or if people 'feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them'.
'He is right. The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money,' Mr Streeting wrote.
'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply.
'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.'
The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday.
Mr Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords.
Last week assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation.
Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job.
'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber.
'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.
'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.'
Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic.
Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger.
'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation.
'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.'
Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation.
He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'.
Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.'
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, said she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords.
She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
11 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
UK must push for diplomatic solution following US strikes on Iran, says Swinney
John Swinney has said the UK must push for a diplomatic solution delivered by the international community, following the overnight US strikes on Iran's nuclear programme. The Scottish First Minister's response to the developments in the Middle East came after Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to return to negotiations. UK minister Douglas Alexander said the Government 'has been putting contingencies in place' as the region braces for any potential retaliation from Iran. US President Donald Trump said three key nuclear sites in Iran were 'completely and fully obliterated' in the military strikes. The US is thought to have used B-2 stealth bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on the sites – including the deeply-buried Fordo facility – as well as 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. The US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is not thought to have been used in the operation. Posting on X, Mr Swinney said: 'The Middle East conflict has reached an alarmingly greater level of danger after the US attacks on Iran. 'The conflict must be stopped by a diplomatic solution delivered through the international community. And the UK Government must insist on that now.' The Prime Minister had earlier said Iran should 'return to the negotiating table', noting the region remains 'volatile'. The Middle East conflict has reached an alarmingly greater level of danger after the US attacks on Iran. The conflict must be stopped by a diplomatic solution delivered through the international community. And the U.K. Government must insist on that now. — John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) June 22, 2025 He said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.' Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf was critical of the Prime Minister's response. He posted on social media: 'An awful statement from the PM, which ignores our collective responsibility to uphold international law. 'Supporting illegal military action in Iran, and gas-lighting us about an imminent nuclear threat, is hauntingly reminiscent of the lies told in the run up to the Iraq war.' During a protest march in London, Mr Yousaf had earlier accused the UK Government of 'abusing' anti-terror laws against the Palestine Action group, which vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call… — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 22, 2025 Trade policy minister Mr Alexander, who is the MP for Lothian East and a former international development minister, spoke to the BBC's Sunday Show. He said: 'I understand that people have woken up this morning to the news that was breaking overnight with a real sense of concern. 'I want to assure your viewers that the British Government has been putting contingencies in place. 'There have been a whole series of meetings, I and other have been attending Cobra meetings in the course of the week.'
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
TalkTV presenter James Whale says he only has weeks to live
TalkTV presenter James Whale announced he has only weeks to live due to terminal stage four kidney cancer. Diagnosed in 2020, he recently stopped treatment after the cancer spread to his spine, brain, and lungs. Whale, 74, shared his emotional struggle, admitting he spends a lot of time crying as he faces the end of his life. The broadcaster has had a 50-year career in radio and TV and was recognized with an MBE in the 2024 New Year Honours List. This is Whale's second cancer diagnosis, following an initial battle in 2000, and his first wife also died from lung cancer in 2018.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
If my father can't hand his title to a woman, boys will continue to dominate
Is it not staggering that, in 2025, only a male can inherit a hereditary title along with the possible land, house and seat in Parliament that come with it? More than a decade ago, Parliament voted to remove male bias in the royal family's succession laws, yet it remains ingrained elsewhere in Britain. Concurrently, I see an endless stream of foreigners coming to my current home of California to take advantage of its liberal rules on assisted fertility. They harvest embryos with IVF and choose the gender of the embryo to be implanted into their, or a paid surrogate's, uterus. Among the people I know who do this, they so often choose a male. Some friends choose to do IVF in California because they cannot get pregnant naturally. But I also know some who are doing it solely to select the gender of their offspring. It's legal in the USA – they call it 'family balancing' and it's a very common request – whereas in the UK, it is illegal. I only learnt this recently. Now that I'm aware, I cannot help but see the link to our archaic primogeniture rights in Britain – and feel compelled to speak out. If daughters do not have inheritance rights in the UK, we are simply reinforcing, in law, the idea that boys are better. This makes it more likely that people will continue choosing boys at Californian IVF clinics. The boys will continue to dominate – and that's just wrong. In my opinion, this gender discrimination is not a problem that affects just the 0.001 per cent – it is an issue that affects the psyche of a nation, and perhaps, inadvertently, multiple nations. This archaic rule reinforces the idea that a daughter is a disappointment. Incapable. Obsolete. It's a global mindset, and as long as Great Britain continues to favour boys over girls, it only strengthens that mindset worldwide. I believe the hereditary title and the possible estate that accompanies it should go to the eldest born, irrespective of gender. In these gender-transitioning times, this statement is more important than ever. As my father, the Earl of Balfour – a man with four daughters, of whom I am the second, and no sons – has suggested previously, the bizarre status quo might mean that my elder sister, Lady Willa Franks, could be eligible to inherit his title if she chose to change her gender. If males who transition to females are allowed to compete as women in the Olympics, then a female who transitions to male can surely inherit a castle. As it stands, when my father dies, his title will go to his younger brother Charles, and then onto Charles's son (his second-born child, because of course it will bypass Charles's firstborn, a daughter). I am the second daughter of an Earl; I have nothing to gain personally by fighting this fight (unless I transition from female to male and 'usurp' my older sister – now there's a thought). Nor do I have anything to lose. 'If you see an injustice, speak out,' people say – and I cannot remain silent, even if the dinosaurs in the House of Lords take umbrage. Some 91 hereditary peers remain in the Lords, having inherited their titles because they have penises. Sir Keir Starmer plans to remove them altogether but seems less concerned about the fact it is still called the House of Lords. It should be renamed the House of Peers. The reverberations of a change to our primogeniture rules would, of course, extend beyond the IVF clinics of California. I am not motivated by the young girls missing out on British dukedoms, though I think about them often. I am thinking about those girls in Afghanistan or Sudan who are denied the chance to go to school by overbearing fathers who deem them more useful as servants at home. I am fighting for them just as much as for my kind, community-serving older sister, who would be a perfect candidate to inherit my father's title and the responsibilities that come with it. I want to make this change for them – because the world is one and equal opportunities matter. That's why I support the 'Land for Women' campaign by the Legacy of War Foundation, which promotes the economic empowerment of women through land ownership. Some argue that the system of hereditary titles should be abolished altogether – although it would seem daft to me to erase the unique and beautiful thing that is British history. But even then, there are still houses and estates – jewels of the nation that are unique and need able custodians. (Come and live in the USA and you'll start to understand the sheer magic of an Anglo-Saxon castle or a Baroque stately home.) These custodians can be just as well female as male – with whatever gendered partner, husband, wife, companion or team of supporters to help, of course. Both are qualified for such a role. The late Queen Elizabeth II – a most capable manager and matriarch – proved that for 70 years. I am not a feminist (a word too female-heavy for me); if I must call myself anything, it is 'gender equalist'. Ideally, I'd class myself simply as 'human' in a time when women have earned the right to vote and the right to equal education and employment opportunities. I do not mean that we excel at the same things – no; we may all overlap in certain tasks, but women excel in some areas that men do not, and vice versa, with myriad overlaps in between. The world would not function if it were not for both sexes. And if owning and running a stately home is akin to raising a child, as many suggest, then clearly a female is as capable as any man in the role. Award them to the firstborn, be they male, female, transgender or non-binary. It's a small change that will make a big impact. And please, let's do it soon, Sir Keir – before those American IVF clinics select even more boys for their customers and discard the girls forever.
