Latest news with #FlorenceEshalomi
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
1.5m foreign workers already in UK could face longer wait for permanent settlement
About 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to Britain since 2020 may have to wait a further five years to apply for permanent settlement. Under changes set out in the immigration white paper, automatic settlement and citizenship rights will be granted after 10 years instead of five. But the paper did not specify whether this would apply to recent arrivals already in the UK and in the process of their application. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, will consult stakeholders on whether the changes will apply to all migrants who have arrived in the UK in the past five years, according to government sources. Related: No 10 defends Starmer's language on immigration likened to Enoch Powell speech If the change goes through, it would mean that 1.5 million foreign workers who would have qualified for permanent settlement as soon as this year face having to wait until they have lived in Britain for 10 years. The Labour MP Florence Eshalomi told the House of Commons on Tuesday that she had been contacted by several of her constituents in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, in south London, who were 'worried about where this uncertainty leaves them'. She said: One even told me that they were so worried that they were considering leaving the UK, because their settled status here is in jeopardy.' If ministers do decide to apply the changes to arrivals from 2020, this would make government policy in the area more robust even than that sought by the Conservatives, who have suggested dating it to 2021. A number of Labour MPs and others have expressed concern at some of the measures in the white paper and the language used by Keir Starmer to introduce it, including that recent levels of migration have caused 'incalculable' damage to the country and that the UK risks becoming 'an island of strangers'. At prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Starmer won unwelcome praise from Nigel Farage for his rhetoric on the subject. The Reform UK leader said he had 'very much enjoyed' Starmer's speech on Monday, adding: 'You seem to be learning a very great deal from us.' Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru's Westminster group leader, accused Starmer of demonising migrants with his language. Starmer said that was 'rubbish' and said: 'I want to lead a country where we pull together and walk into the future as neighbours and as communities, not as strangers, and the loss of control of migration by the last government put all of that at risk, and that's why we're fixing the system based on principles of control, selection and fairness.' Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, defended the prime minister while resisting an invitation to repeat his exact words, and called for the UK to become 'a nation of neighbours'. She said: 'I agree with the prime minister that without curbs on migration, without making sure that we have strong rules that everyone follows, and that we have a pace of immigration that allows for integration into our country, we do risk becoming a nation of people estranged from one another. 'What he has described is something that I absolutely believe in, which are the values of the Labour party, which is a desire to see this country as a nation of neighbours.' Separately, vice-chancellors and other higher education sector leaders have warned that proposals in the white paper on international students will worsen the financial crisis already affecting universities. Related: Skilled visa rules, deportations and higher fees: what's in the immigration white paper With four in 10 universities in England likely to be in deficit this summer, Jo Johnson, the former Conservative universities minister, said few were in a position to absorb the government's proposed 6% levy on income from overseas students or pass it on in higher fees. 'This risks both weakening the financial position of the sector and making it harder to compete in a global market for talent,' he said. Shitij Kapur, the vice-chancellor and president of King's College London, where 54% of students are from overseas, said: 'The precise details of the wording and policy change matters less than how it is perceived in the 150 countries we recruit our students from. Are we still seen as a welcoming jurisdiction?' Steve West, the vice-chancellor of UWE Bristol, speaking on behalf of University Alliance, said the international student levy was an additional tax on universities. 'Taken alongside eye-watering pension costs and the national insurance hikes, [it] would add to a mounting proportion of university resources being diverted to the Treasury,' he said. Combined with a proposed cut to the graduate post-study work visa from two years to 18 months, also outlined in the white paper, West warned of a further drop in international students. Numbers are already in decline after a clampdown by the previous government, a factor that is exacerbating the financial crisis in the sector. In a shift in focus to unofficial migration, Starmer is to visit Albania from Thursday to discuss more ways to tackle people smugglers and the broader issue of asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats from France. Albania is one of the few recent success stories in reducing numbers, with a programme to speed up the return of Albanian nationals leading a 95% fall in small boat arrivals in the UK from the country over three years. In the first ever official visit to the country by a UK prime minister, Starmer is to hold talks in Tirana and visit the port of Durres, across the Adriatic from Italy.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
MP ‘will not be complicit' in approving assisted dying law in safeguards call
Assisted dying safeguards to prevent coercion and 'terrible tragedy' are 'inadequate', MPs have argued as they debated a draft new law. Labour's Naz Shah warned that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is 'literally a matter of life and death' and said she would not be 'complicit' in approving a law without adequate protections. Her colleague Florence Eshalomi told the Commons that she too opposed the proposal to legislate for assisted dying, as a result of 'inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities'. Ahead of Friday's debate about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Ms Shah tabled an amendment so that a person would not meet the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley who proposed the Bill, accepted the change. Later in the debate, Bradford West MP Ms Shah, said she had spoken to the parents of a girl who had diabetes and complexities of anorexia. 'If the safeguards in this Bill fail, even once, it will be a young woman like Jessica who dies, it will be parents like Leslie and Neil who lose a child. That is a terrible tragedy no family should ever have to endure,' she said. 'No-one in this House will be able to say truthfully that we did not know or didn't see this coming. That is not compassion, that is abandonment. 'I will not be complicit in that and I hope this House will not be either.' Ms Shah said: 'This is literally a matter of life and death. If this Bill passes that it doesn't have the safeguards, there's no coming back from those decisions.' Conservative MP for Reigate Rebecca Paul said she supported Ms Shah's amendment, because it 'addresses a big risk'. She said: 'In the case of anorexia, there are physical manifestations of the illness, such as malnutrition and diabetes, that might mean the patient meets the definition of being terminally ill, and that is the nub of the problem here. 'The Bill doesn't adequately rule out physical manifestations caused by mental illness.' Ms Eshalomi said she had 'voted against this Bill at second reading on the grounds of inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities', and added: 'I'm sad to say I'm even more worried now than I was then.' The Vauxhall and Camberwell Green MP also said: 'It is because we recognise that if this Bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who may wish to die. It is not wrong or scaremongering to consider the wider family life, relationships with feelings of burdens or coercion including vulnerable women and people from the BME (black and minority ethnic) community at the end of their life. 'It is not wrong or scaremongering for us as politicians as we continue to receive correspondence from our constituents about the broken state of our NHS and social care, and for us to think carefully about a Bill which may alter the very relationship between doctors and their patients. 'It is frankly insulting to disabled people, hardworking professionals up and down the country who have raised many valid concerns about this Bill, to have it dismissed as religious beliefs.' Addressing Ms Shah's amendment, Ms Leadbeater told the Commons she had previously 'worked with a number of people with eating disorders'. She said: 'Eating disorders cause huge distress for individuals and their families and loved ones, but with care and with the right treatments, it is possible for people to recover and to go back to leading a full and fulfilling life.' Ms Leadbeater said 'some people have expressed concerns that the severe physical consequences of a decision to stop eating or drinking could still enable someone to claim eligibility for assisted dying when otherwise they would not be able to do so'. She backed the amendment subject to possible 'further drafting changes' to reduce the risk of a 'loophole'. From the despatch box, health minister Stephen Kinnock said whether or not to approve Ms Shah's proposal was 'a policy choice for Parliament' but warned it 'risks introducing some uncertainty over a persons' eligibility for assistance under the Bill'. He added: 'Recognising the intent of this amendment, we do not believe it would render the Bill unworkable.' After the debate, Ms Shah revealed she was 'unbelievably' not told that her amendment would be accepted, and added: 'We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.'
Sky News
16-05-2025
- Health
- Sky News
MPs criticise terminally ill Esther Rantzen's assisted dying intervention
Terminally ill journalist Dame Esther Rantzen was branded "disrespectful" and "insulting" by MPs during a debate on the assisted dying bill. The broadcaster and Childline founder wrote to all MPs ahead of Friday's Commons' debate urging them to vote for what she called a "crucial reform". MPs were voting on amendments made to the bill - the report stage - following months of a committee going line by line through it after being introduced last year by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. The bill says people with six months to live who have the mental capacity can request medical assistance to legally end their life. Dame Esther, who has stage four lung cancer, suggested many MPs who opposed the bill have "undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them". However, in a highly charged Commons session, some MPs took umbrage with that. Labour MP Florence Eshalomi, who is a Christian and voted against the bill the first time, told the Commons: "This is frankly insulting to disabled people, hard working professionals up and down the country, who have raised many valid concerns about this bill, to have it dismissed as religious beliefs." Jess Asato, a Labour MP who, as a child, cared for her grandmother with serious health problems, said Dame Esther "accused those of us who have concerns about the bills as having undeclared religious beliefs". "Many colleagues found this distasteful and disrespectful," said the MP, who previously voted against the bill. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who voted against the bill last year, backed Ms Asato's criticism as he retweeted her X post saying Dame Esther's comment about faith was "particularly distasteful". 'Clumsy criticism' Conservative MP Dr Kieran Mullan said there had been some "unhelpful remarks by high profile campaigners", and while he is not religious he was "concerned to see a clumsy criticism" that those objecting to the bill are doing so because of their "religious beliefs". In a dig at Dame Esther's comments, Rebecca Paul, Tory MP for Reigate, said she is not against assisted dying "in principle" but is against the bill - and wanted to put on the record: "I have no personal religious beliefs." The debate saw some MPs on the verge of tears as they described their own experiences of having debilitating conditions, or having family members in pain. MPs do not have to vote along party lines for the bill. How did MPs vote? An amendment tabled by Ms Leadbeater, which "expands the protection" for medical practitioners to clarify they have "no obligation" to be part of an assisted death was passed by MPs. It also provides legal protections for medical professionals to ensure they are not subject to any kind of punishment for refusing to carry out an assisted death. Another new clause to allow employers to impose a blanket ban on staff facilitating an assisted death was rejected. Since the bill was first introduced, there have been significant changes, including the replacement of a High Court judge to sign assisted dying off by a three-member expert panel - on top of two doctors having to approve. The time at which assisted dying would come into effect was doubled to four years from when it becomes law, if voted through. Medical colleges pull support Opponents have argued the bill does not have enough safeguards and is being rushed through. Three days before the debate, the Royal College of Psychiatrists pulled its support for the bill over the change that will mean a psychiatrist must be on the panel that decides if someone can die. The next day, the Royal College of Physicians (the largest college) adopted a similar position. However, supporters argue it is time to change the law, with Ms Leadbeater saying: "If we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable."
Spectator
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Parliament is changing its mind on assisted dying
There was a markedly different feel to today's debate on Assisted Dying. The last time the House debated Kim Leadbeater's Bill at the end of November, there was plenty of pep and self-congratulation among the speeches. But today, it was a decidedly more bad-tempered affair, as MPs met for the first day on the Bill's report stage, ahead of its Third Reading in a month's time. There are four obvious reasons why today saw a shift in the mood of the House. The first was the chop-and-change of the Bill's safeguards during committee stage, with roughly 150 changes since the last vote. Labour's Florence Eshalomi gave one of the most powerful speeches, declaring she was 'even more worried now' about the Bill than before, citing coercion fears. Rebecca Paul, a Tory, claimed there had been a 'massive shift' in the Bill's emphasis from 'pain' to 'choice and autonomy.' The second reason was Esther Rantzen's last-minute letter, published last night, accusing some MPs of being influenced by 'undeclared personal religious beliefs.'
Sky News
16-05-2025
- Health
- Sky News
Politics latest: Esther Rantzen branded 'distasteful and disrespectful' as MPs debated assisted dying bill
Labour MP fears 'disproportionate impact' of assisted dying bill - and hits out at Rantzen Labour MP Florence Eshalomi rises next to speak in opposition to the bill, as she did at second reading last year "on the grounds of inadequate safeguard against the coercion of minority communities". She tells MPs that she has been following the detailed scrutiny of the bill at committee stage in the hopes that her "concerns would be addressed". "But I am sad to say I'm even more worried now than I was then," she says. Eshalomi also states that a Private Member's Bill is not "the appropriate mechanism for a national decision of this magnitude to be made", and the government should lead on such a change, rather than an MP "without an elected mandate" (a reference to Kim Leadbeater). Eshalomi also argues that Leadbeater's amendment to ensure that medical professionals will not face any sanction for refusing to carry out an assisted death is not "comprehensive". She quotes a palliative care consultant who works predominantly with ethnic minorities who told her, "we are scared". They fear there will be a "disproportionate impact" on ethnic minority communities. Eshalomi tells MPs: "Are we really prepared to sideline those unheard voices, and risk embedding further inequalities in healthcare as we legislate?" She goes on: "If hospices are unable to opt out of providing assisted dying as a collective policy, then the people who already feel ignored by the healthcare systems are more likely to fear accessing the care that they need at the end of their lives." The Labour MP also takes a swipe at Dame Esther Rantzen for suggesting that "undeclared religious beliefs" were behind some MPs' opposition to the legislation. She says that is not the reason, but rather because "we recognise that if this bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who may wish to die". Rantzen's statement was "frankly insulting to disabled people, hardworking professionals up and down the country who have raised many valid concerns about this bill to have it dismissed as 'religious beliefs'".
