Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill.
Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: '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 of 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 Lord's 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 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'.
He 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, told the PA news agency 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.'
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.'
Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'.
In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Denbighshire, Conwy, Gwynedd & Anglesey MPs back assisted dying bill
MPs voted 314 in favour, to 291 against, during the third reading of Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) in Parliament on Friday (June 20). This does not mean the bill has become law, but it allows it to now progress to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. The majority almost halved since the last vote in November, during the bill's second reading. If successful, the bill would make assisted suicide legal for terminally ill adults expected to die within six months, and with the mental capacity to make a choice about how to end their life. Below are comments from MPs Llinos Medi, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hughes, Gill German and Becky Gittins on why they all backed the bill. Llinos Medi (Image: Submitted) "I am assured that the bill has been strengthened during the scrutiny process. For example, I voted in favour of an amendment to prevent health professionals such as doctors from initiating conversations with under-18s about assisted dying, which passed. "Regardless of today's vote, scrutiny does not end here. As MPs, we have a duty and I remain committed to listening to all voices, including those who oppose the bill. "Whatever your opinion on today's outcome, I believe that we should show respect to both sides of the debate. Days like today are not easy and we must show compassion to all." Liz Saville Roberts (Image: Submitted) "I believe that adults who are terminally ill, with a prognosis of six months or less to live, and who have full mental capacity, should have the legal right to make this profoundly personal decision for themselves, free from coercion and with strong safeguards in place. "I fully understand the concerns many people, including disability rights groups and medical organisations, have raised about protecting individuals. "That is why I support the inclusion of strict safeguards, involving medical professionals, social workers and judicial oversight, to ensure that each decision is carefully assessed, voluntary, and free from pressure. "I am also conscious of concerns about the so-called 'slippery slope'. However, the bill is tightly framed, applying only to terminally ill adults and excluding those whose suffering is solely related to mental illness. Any further changes would require full parliamentary scrutiny." Claire Hughes (Image: Submitted) "Fundamentally, I believe we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and when enough is enough. "I believe that the status quo - where only terminally ill people with the wealth to enable them to travel to Dignitas are able to exercise control over their final moments - is not good enough. "This bill has gone through a robust process, making it rigorous, practical and safe, and is rooted in the principles of compassion, justice and human dignity. "I want, again, to make it abundantly clear that good palliative care and giving terminally ill people the choice to choose an assisted death, are not mutually exclusive." Gill German (Image: Rick Matthews) "During report stage, I supported New Clause 10, which expands the bill's protection for medical practitioners to ensure they have 'no obligation' to administer an assisted death and provide legal protections for medical professionals to ensure they are not subject to punishment for refusing to carry out an assisted death. "Further, I voted against New Clause 1 and 2. While I respect the deeply held views on all sides, I believe both amendments introduced unnecessary risks by restricting open, compassionate conversations between clinicians and patients that are often essential to end-of-life care. "New Clause 1, which was not adopted, would have banned doctors from raising assisted dying with adult patients at all, even when clinically appropriate. This clause would disproportionately harm those with lower health literacy who may not know how to start the conversation. "New Clause 2, which was passed, prevents doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. I believe this risks isolating terminally ill teenagers or young relatives of dying patients, by preventing doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. "This may drive vulnerable young people towards unregulated and potentially harmful sources of information." Becky Gittins (Image: Submitted) "I believe there are as many safeguards as practically possible contained within this bill to ensure free and fair choice for patients to make this decision in an informed way, free from coercion. "I hope that the high level of parliamentary scrutiny that this bill has received will encourage a more forensic consideration of the role of patient decision-making across the UK and broader society. "Throughout the legislative process, the attention given to the needs of the most vulnerable people and the importance of ensuring a free choice has brought an essential focus on the role of coercion, domestic abuse, disability, ableism and poverty on people's ability to genuinely make a free decision about their lives – whether on this issue or many others."
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Our industrial decline gives a lie to Better together claims
The collateral damage has been massive with whole communities, dependent on these jobs, being virtually abandoned. The subsequent social damage is all too obvious with the skilled jobs that sustained previous generations being replaced by a gig economy characterised by short-term, poorly-paid and often unskilled work. The consequences are there in plain sight – growing levels of poverty, lengthening queues at food banks and the scandal of children going to school poorly clothed and hungry. Of course, a healthy economy depends to a certain extent on inward investment but over the last decades the ownership of a whole host of British companies has moved overseas. Scotland has been hit particularly hard with the loss of control over our once-famous banking and finance sectors. Scottish Power and SSE are largely owned by Iberdola and a Qatari investment company. While foreign capital investment must be welcomed, it brings with it the constant threat of closures and asset-stripping. Regrettably however, it is not just our industrial and financial sectors that have been taken over but vast sections of our utilities and public services as well. In a famous speech in 1964, Harold Wilson slammed the Tories for glorying in a country "where the rewards go to land racketeers and property spivs". It was Neil Kinnock who described the then Conservative government's privatisation policies as "selling off the family silver". However successive governments both Tory and Labour have overseen vast swathes of our public services falling into private hands. So, for example, there are now 27 separate rail companies operating in England and Wales and 10 water companies. The long-suffering public have experienced worsening standards of service and ever-mounting costs while huge bonuses and dividends are being paid out to bosses and shareholders. What makes the situation even worse is that the Government pays out vast sums in subsidies to these failing companies. When you consider that in England large sections of welfare, care, probation, prisons, schools and even the NHS are now in private hands then it is no wonder that our national debt continues to soar while public complaints about failing standards rocket. Is this really the future promised by the Better Together campaign? Eric Melvin, Edinburgh. Read more letters Indy would mean 'normal' politics John NE Rankin (Letters, June 20) is obviously a stickler for accuracy. He castigates attributing the "ongoing ferry shambles" to Calmac rather than Caledonian Marine Assets Ltd and, ultimately in Mr Rankin's opinion, the SNP Government. He cannot then resist taking a swipe at supporters of this government, which he says "could not run a country". Whether or not the SNP could successfully run an independent Scotland is a matter of opinion. What is a matter of fact, however, is that Mr Rankin's opinion of the SNP would be tested by the Scottish electorate in all subsequent elections post-independence. The SNP would stand or fall on its record of government alone. In other words, we would have "normal" politics where voting would be dominated by the same concerns as every other Western European democracy. And, oh yes, the Scottish electorate would not have its near neighbour's choice imposed on it by sheer weight of numbers. David S McCartney, Forres. Make Scotland a beacon for peace Watching the latest developments in the Middle East war from Scotland can make you feel depressed and powerless. Yet Scotland is involved, and should be taking a strong stance against the war. Firstly Scotland is acting as a staging post for the US bombing missions in Iran and their assistance to Israel's war. Prestwick Airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has seen large numbers of US war plans landing and being refuelled on their way to wage war on Iran and to assist the Israeli war effort. It's time the Scottish Government closed this route for war by banning US warplanes at Prestwick. Secondly if this war in the Middle East extends to a global war Scotland's nuclear base at Faslane will be the number one target for attack and if it's hit then much of Glasgow will disappear surely it's time that this expensive and ineffective nuclear base was closed. Thirdly Scottish arms industries are supplying the Israeli war machines with vital spare parts and it's time this was ended. Of course I realise that none of this can be achieved while Scotland is part of the UK and where Keir Starmer's Labour Government is guilty of failing to condemn Israel for genocide in Gaza or the US for its warlike interventions' instead they are grovelling to Donal Trump in the hope of crumbs from his table. Support for Scottish independence has reached a new high of 56% recently. Now let's turn that into a pro-independence majority in the Scottish elections next year. If that happens the Scottish Parliament should declare our independence and end our complicity in war and instead make Scotland a beacon for peace in the world. Hugh Kerr, Edinburgh. • I'm an idiot. I admit it. I believed Donald Trump when he said before his election that there would be no more of America's endless wars far from America's shores. Instead he has thrown in his lot with America's triad of evil – the military industrial complex, the Neocons, and the powerful Israeli lobby. Benjamin Netanyahu, facing three charges of corruption at home, has achieved his long-held ambition of bringing the United States into a war with Iran. Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine. He hasn't. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East. He hasn't. Instead he has continued with his country's history of bombing countries and killing thousands. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Iraq. Somalia. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Iran. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. William Loneskie, Lauder. Donald Trump (Image: PA)Give us back our licence fee BBC Scotland boasts that Scotland gets 90% of its licence fee for funding. Given the heavy Anglo-centric bias of the BBC platforms funded by the UK-wide licence fee (BBC News 24, Radios 4 and 5 etc), why don't we have 100% of our licence fee back, and use it in Scotland to make programmes relevant to us, our history and culture? Scots traversed Europe for 500 years, then the globe for the next 300, so it need not be parochial. There is also income from BBC Commercial, which brings in a couple of billion pounds a year. Why does Scotland not share in that? GR Weir, Ochiltree. Politicising the bus pass The US Government's cackhanded launch of a 'Trump card' golden visa scheme, its promotional card bearing the visage and signature of that country's current elected head of state, conflates state functions with the personal identity of an incumbent officeholder. That sort of nonsense befits authoritarian tyrannies not democracies Sadly but somehow not surprisingly, the shambles echoes the sorry state of Scotland's bus passes. Rather than simply calling them bus passes, as happened for decades, the separatist regional government emblazons them with the crux decussata. They carry the irrelevant legend 'Saltire cards' (not even their formal name), predictably stylised without a space. English bus passes are at least more suitably named to reflect their purpose. They do bear a St George's Cross though: Scottish separatists' divisive identity politics have spread poison down south, alas. Ought one, though, to call Scotland's bus passes merely 'bus passes'? The scheme's website describes what is properly known as the national entitlement card as 'Scotland's National Smartcard', again grammatically wrong as well as ideologically questionable. In principle, enabling some local government services to be offered digitally could be a helpful move. But an overtly politicised design combined with the Orwellian whiff of identity cards introduced by the back door bear the grubby fingerprints of nationalist authoritarianism. Witness their unthinking use on buses even by primary school pupils. Christopher Ruane, Lanark.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP
In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes". Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member). The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP. Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes. Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on. More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP. And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%. But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP. And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP. When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes. In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting. READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively. For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout. The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1. The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill. While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote. Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign". He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases. Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said. Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect. READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years. "It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job." Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties. "SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most." Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.
