Connect with us

Published

on

David Cameron has become the first former prime minister to come out in support of the assisted dying bill.

The former Tory leader has written a piece in The Times explaining his decision, and saying that in the past he opposed moves to introduce measures allowing terminally ill people to end their own life.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton wrote: “My main concern and reason for not supporting proposals before now has always been the worry that vulnerable people could be pressured into hastening their own deaths.”

However, he says he has now been reassured by those arguing in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater will put the bill forward for a vote in the House of Commons on Friday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

MP has ‘no doubts’ about assisted dying bill

“As campaigners have convincingly argued, this proposal is not about ending life, it is about shortening death,” Lord Cameron wrote in The Times.

His intervention comes after Gordon Brown, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss all came out in opposition to the bill.

None of Sir John Major, Sir Tony Blair or Rishi Sunak have made their positions public.

Gordon Brown. File pic: PA
Image:
Gordon Brown. File pic: PA

In his article, Lord Cameron says he asked four questions before reaching his conclusion – whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people, whether this is a “slippery slope”, whether it would put unnecessary pressure on the NHS and will the proposed law lead to a meaningful reduction in human suffering?

On the first point, Lord Cameron says protections like two doctors needing to give approval as well as a judge, alongside the requirement of self-administration of the fatal drugs, are enough.

He also highlights the criminalisation of coercing someone to end their own life.

On whether the bill is a “slippery slope” – as Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood claimed – he says such an argument can be made for any social change.

The former prime minister writes that the bill is in “a sensible and practical resting place for public policy in this area”, and is explicitly only for the terminally ill, rather than those with mental illnesses and disabilities.

Read more:
What is in the assisted dying legislation?
Lawyer says Canada’s assisted dying has gone too far

The most senior Conservative to back the bill


Jon Craig - Chief political correspondent

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

Former prime ministers David Cameron and Gordon Brown both lost a child in tragic circumstances. But they’ve now come to a different conclusion about assisted dying.

Lord Cameron lost son Ivan, aged six, who was severely disabled and suffered from epilepsy and cerebral palsy, in February 2009. Mr Brown, the then prime minister, cancelled PMQs out of respect.

When assisted dying was last debated in the Commons in 2015 – when he was prime minister – Mr Cameron voted against it. But now, in a major and potentially influential intervention, he’s changed his mind.

“When we know that there’s no cure, when we know death is imminent, when patients enter a final and acute period of agony, then surely, if they can prevent it and – crucially – want to prevent it, we should let them make that choice,” Lord Cameron writes in The Times.

But the former premier is in a minority of Conservatives who back the bill and most senior Tory MPs, including Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, are opposed.

Lord Cameron is also the first of all the UK’s living former prime ministers to back Kim Leadbeater’s controversial bill, which is being debated in the Commons on Friday.

This week three former Conservative PMs – Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – let it be known that they oppose the bill. Baroness May, like Lord Cameron, will have a vote if the bill reaches the Lords.

Mr Brown’s daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely weighing 2lb 4oz, died after just 11 days in January 2002 following a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.

A son of the manse who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, Mr Brown says the tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying.

On whether it put undue pressure on the NHS, Lord Cameron dismisses the argument.

“It’s not just that the bill would be applicable in only a very small number of cases, it is that the NHS exists to serve patients and the public, not the other way around,” he writes.

On the fourth point – whether it will reduce human suffering – the former prime minister says: “I find it very hard to argue that the answer to this question is anything other than ‘yes’.”

šŸ‘‰ Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app šŸ‘ˆ

Lord Cameron adds that, as a member of the House of Lords, he gets letters from terminally ill patients and that poses questions.

He wrote: “When we know that there’s no cure, when we know death is imminent, when patients enter a final and acute period of agony, then surely, if they can prevent it and – crucially – want to prevent it, we should let them make that choice.

“It’s right that MPs are having a free vote on this issue – and our tradition of free votes on such moral issues should be maintained.

“The fact it is a free vote gives legislators the chance to think afresh and, if the evidence convinces them, to change their mind. That’s what I have done. And, if this bill makes it to the House of Lords, I will be voting for it.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Blockchain compliance tools can slash TradFi costs: Chainlink co-founder

Published

on

By

Blockchain compliance tools can slash TradFi costs: Chainlink co-founder

Blockchain compliance tools can slash TradFi costs: Chainlink co-founder

Institutional investors will increasingly adopt blockchain-based compliance solutions and tokenized RWAs, Chainlink’s co-founder Sergey Nazarov told Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC explores Ethereum token standard for compliant securities

Published

on

By

SEC explores Ethereum token standard for compliant securities

SEC explores Ethereum token standard for compliant securities

ERC-3643 Association president Dennis O’Connell told Cointelegraph the SEC showed ā€œa noticeable shift in toneā€ and openness to blockchain standards.

Continue Reading

Politics

Abolishing Ofwat and compulsory water meters – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry

Published

on

By

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.

The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.

The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.

Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people

The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.

File pic: iStock
Image:
File pic: iStock

He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.

Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:

More on Sewage

• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.

It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.

• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.

The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.

• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.

• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.

• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.

To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.

• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.

• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.

• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.

• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.

Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.

How has the report been received?

In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.

The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.

“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.

“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.

“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”

Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.

“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.

“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.

“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”

Continue Reading

Trending