Dame Joanna Lumley: I ‘wouldn't mind' assisted dying
The 79-year-old actress says she supports the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill approved in the House of Commons last month, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death.
Asked about the Bill in an interview with Saga magazine, Dame Joanna said: 'People are terribly anxious about it and think one may be coerced (into voluntary euthanasia).
'But I'm saying this now when nobody's coercing me, don't let me turn into somebody who doesn't recognise the people I love most, where I'm having a miserable time.
'When I get to the stage where I can't speak and have to be fed, that won't be me any more and that's when I wouldn't mind saying farewell.'
Under the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was backed by 314 votes to 291 in the Commons, those wishing to go through assisted dying would require approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
It will next come before the House of Lords for further debate and votes at a date to be confirmed.
Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill with cancer and has been one of the biggest proponents of the bill, has urged the House of Lords to pass the legislation.
The TV presenter and campaigner, who has stopped responding to her lung cancer treatment, said: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.
'Law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons, who have voted this through.'
Lord Shinkwin, a disabled Conservative peer, has been critical of the bill, having been in intensive care earlier this year.
He said if a doctor had asked him at the time about assisted dying – which they would be able to under the provisions of the bill – he 'would have felt under real pressure to do that'.
The proposal was first put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October last year and passed through the House of Commons on June 20.
Sir Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, were among the 224 Labour MPs who voted in favour of the bill, with 160 against.
Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, was one of the 20 Conservative MPs out of 121 who voted against the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Why I am joining the Palestine Action protesters
Today, I will be in Parliament Square to demand that the UK government uphold our right to freedom of speech, and to denounce the genocide that the Israeli government is perpetrating in Gaza against the Palestinian people. As a human rights defender, a mother, grandmother and great-great grandmother who has denounced genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing throughout the world, I cannot remain silent, witnessing the genocide and the abhorrent starvation of the Palestinian people. I will be holding a sign that will read: 'The UK Government is in flagrant violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' Volker Türk, UN human rights chief, stated that '[the proscription of Palestine Action ] appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that are at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' Since 5 July, when the order proscribing the Palestine Action protest group under terrorism legislation came into force, hundreds of people have been arrested for holding up peaceful signs motivated by their consternation and horror at the genocide in Gaza. I was shocked to see 83-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt on television being arrested on the day that Palestine Action was proscribed. Reverend Parfitt was attending a demonstration in Parliament Square, sitting in a camp chair around fellow protesters holding a placard stating her support of the outlawed protest group. While being carried away by police, Reverend Parfitt described the ban as "total nonsense", and went on to add that it symbolised a "loss of civil liberties in this country". Some have had their homes raided by the police. No one arrested seemed to pose any threat to the public. Türk has also said that the UK's counter-terrorism legislation 'misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law'. He added: 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effects on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people.' Yesterday, Amnesty International wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, stating that arresting protesters would violate international law: 'The arrest of otherwise peaceful protesters solely for expressing the statement 'I Oppose Genocide – I Support Palestine Action' is a violation of the UK's international obligations to protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 'Further arrests [carried out on the 9 August demonstration] would violate international human rights law. As such, we urge you to instruct your officers to comply with the UK's international obligations and act with restraint in their response to any such protests that occur, by not arresting protesters who are merely carrying placards that state they oppose genocide and support Palestine Action.' The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights recently wrote a paper, supported by numerous legal advocacy groups, that states: 'Evidence suggests active and sustained cooperation between the UK and Israeli armies. Concerns surround reports that the UK military has carried out over 500 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, sharing intelligence with Israel – including during the ceasefire.' Only yesterday, further evidence emerged of the RAF's ongoing support for Israel: 'Britain continues to run near daily surveillance flights over Gaza with the help of a US contractor at a time of growing questions about how the intelligence obtained is used and shared with the Israeli military. 'Specialist flight trackers estimate that RAF Shadow aircraft have run more than 600 flights over the Palestinian territory from the Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus in an attempt to locate the remaining hostages held by Hamas since December 2023.' Palestine Action is being punished for exposing the crimes of the British government and taking action to uphold international law. We cannot turn a blind eye to the horrific crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. I will be joining the demonstration in Parliament Square to oppose genocide and defend human rights and freedom of speech. Bianca Jagger is the founder and president of the BIanca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, a Council of Europe goodwill ambassador, and a member of the executive director's leadership council of Amnesty International USA
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Enjoy summer while you can – Rachel Reeves is already planning an autumn income tax rise
Not for the first time, nor the last, the cry goes up: who would be Rachel Reeves? Most inside the Westminster bubble are able to enjoy a summer break. But the chancellor and her Treasury colleagues face weeks of agonising as to what lies ahead. Come autumn, she must attend the Labour conference, make her set-piece speech and do rounds of interviews. There is the IMF gathering at which the world's other financiers opine and mark her homework to date. Then there is the Budget. What Reeves must confront is the knowledge that 'faster and further' economic growth is not yielding immediate dividends, if indeed it is happening at all; she will insist it is, but the figures say different. Meanwhile, the fiscal black hole she pointed to as not her fault is actually getting bigger and she can no longer seriously maintain this is entirely due to the Tories. Not after more than a year in office. A £25bn deficit could rise to near £50bn if the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is to be believed. Significantly, few apart from those in her own team have questioned this figure. Why? Because borrowing has climbed higher than expected and the promised kickstart has not materialised. Britain's economy is sluggish, inflation has not gone away and unemployment is a worry, and the fears are real even in sectors once relatively immune – in retail and hospitality, but also in graduate posts. When parents rise up because their sons and daughters cannot secure jobs, Reeves's headache will get a whole lot worse. A lethal combination of global economic uncertainty, investment decisions on hold, and the looming presence of AI, is having a severely detrimental effect. She has to plug the black hole, but how? In theory, there are three tools she can use, in any combination, but somehow Reeves must reach that £50bn number. In practice, one avenue is already closed; she cannot borrow any more. Neither, as she is Labour, can she slash public services; austerity was what a Tory predecessor did, it is not for her. So, there's only one remaining and that is to raise taxes. Reeves can increase a bit here and chip away there. That's all it will be: tinkering. It won't fill the divide. They all add up, but levies on the ill-health and wellbeing products of tobacco and alcohol (and get ready for the howls from beleaguered pub landlords) and gambling will not make anything like enough difference. She will steer clear of clobbering business; one hit was sufficient (National Insurance Contributions) and she cannot return for more, it would blow apart her growth agenda and send a terrible signal to potential international investors. A wealth tax, advocated by the left, may well be ruled out for the same reason. As will a windfall tax on banking profits that would antagonise a City that Labour went to great lengths to woo. No, it's down to VAT, employees' national insurance, and income tax. Labour has said it will never raise taxes on 'working people' but that is what these are. Reeves herself has said she won't but, realistically, does she have a choice? VAT is regressive; the rate does not increase the wealthier you are. That leaves employees' national insurance and income tax. National insurance is capped so in that sense it is also regressive. The fairest option and the most attractive in terms of how much it will raise, is income tax. It is simply understood, easily collected and applies right across the wealth spectrum; there are few ifs and buts with income tax. It is harder to avoid. But if ever there was a tax on working people, it is this one – billed as such on every payslip. In a strange way, that might make it more appealing. Any other duty is divisive, a section of society can claim with justification they have been singled out, they will be worse off than others. Income tax is definably progressive. But it is also the most direct, the biggest, state charge on a workers' earnings. Making it bigger leaves Reeves and the government open to charges of rank betrayal, of going back on a pledge often and loudly made. It's Labour punishing the workers, the working-class, its bedrock support. Light the touch paper and run. What is likely, therefore, is the almightiest of political spin operations as this unpalatable step – the one they said they would never take, that is guaranteed to inflame their supporters, that will inspire their opponents – is explained. It may be billed as a one-off, aimed at saving public services, not to be repeated, the solution to a national emergency. We will start to know for sure when the holiday season ends, the machine gears up again and the softening up begins for what is coming. Some may be lying on the beach on their towels; if Reeves is at home, with her head inside a towel, no one should be surprised.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Why Starmer will be back for another stab at welfare cuts
Asked to name the worst moment of his first year as prime minister, Keir Starmer spoke movingly about the death of his brother. If he had given a political answer – well, an honest one – it would surely have been his humiliating climbdown over cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by 126 Labour MPs. Ministers still lick deep wounds, but tell me they have not given up on trying to reduce the ballooning welfare bill – set to rise from £313bn to £373bn by 2029-30. 'It is unsustainable,' one said. 'Any government would have to address it. We can't give up on reform.' Starmer admitted to a recent meeting of Labour's national executive committee (NEC) his filleted legislation had not been handled well – a bit of an understatement. He promised a review by Stephen Timms, the minister for disability, would do better. Disabled people will play a key role, though, so it is hard to see how the review will recommend savings. Timms has said it is 'not intended to deliver cuts'. Fellow ministers are investing a lot of hope in the highly respected Timms. But he will need to be a miracle worker to keep everyone happy, producing a package supported by disability campaigners that also involves lower spending. In fact, Labour has a better story to tell on welfare reform than it appears. It doesn't win headlines, but Alison McGovern, the employment minister, is overseeing a quiet revolution. She has ended the 'blaming and shaming' of the jobless by the Conservatives, who split the unemployed into three groups: those 'ready for work'; a support group needing help to find jobs; and people who would never work. McGovern thinks her Tory predecessors concentrated on the low-hanging fruit to get as many in the 'ready for work' group into any job to keep the unemployment figures down. Her 'culture change' includes scrapping the three groups so everyone is helped to get the right job. She also wants to transform jobcentres from drab 'signing on' offices into welcoming places where work coaches give personalised advice and children play with toys while their mums and dads speak to staff over a cup of tea. Jobcentres are getting more freedom to bring in new ways of working. Some now use text messages to tell claimants about vacancies or job fairs they might be interested in. Not a draconian 'you must do this' to keep your benefit, but 'you might be interested to know about this'. Ministers will outline plans this autumn for the Department for Work and Pensions to use more AI so staff can switch from spreadsheets to helping people directly. McGovern is convinced the personal touch offered by work coaches can make all the difference. On a recent jobcentre visit, she met a woman who had battled mental health struggles and self-doubt, and is now happily working as a cleaner. She also heard about a man who didn't leave his home for a year who is now in full-time work. Although the unemployment rate (4.7 per cent) is at a four-year high – partly because of the hike in national insurance for business – there is a ray of hope. The past 12 months have seen a bigger drop in the 'economically inactive' rate as more people make themselves available for work. At 9 million, the inactive group is still higher than before the pandemic, but 400,000 lower than its peak. However, getting the jobless, sick and disabled into work requires upfront investment, and Rachel Reeves needs to find savings to stick to her fiscal rules, with experts forecasting a gap of up to £51bn by 2029-30. Starmer wants to spend more, not less. He told the NEC he wants to reduce child poverty by the next general election, as all previous Labour governments had done. The easiest way would be to abolish the two-child benefit cap at a cost of £3.5bn, as Gordon Brown proposed this week. Reeves seems to be warming to Brown's plan to raise gambling taxes. The prime minister should ensure the revenue is used to lift the two-child cap, rather than fill the hole in the public finances. Such a move would unite the Labour Party and bring the vast majority of its rebellious backbenchers onside, as Starmer needs to. But it should be part of a grand bargain under which Labour MPs, in return, accept long-term measures to control welfare spending – including tighter eligibility criteria for future but not existing claimants. Crucially, such changes would have to pass the test of being genuine reform rather than another crude Treasury cost-cutting exercise like the abandoned £5bn savings on sickness and disability benefits. Perhaps Starmer and Reeves might even offer a grand bargain with the public, too. It's an open secret that taxes will rise in the November Budget. Why not present this as everyone contributing something under a 'rights and responsibilities' agenda? Under a 'fair' tax and benefits regime, the jobless would have a duty to seek work, hard-pressed workers would be better rewarded – and the richest would bear the brunt of the tax rises. Difficult to sell? Yes. Impossible? No.
