Andrew Mitchell: Tomorrow, Conservative MPs should honour our promise to some of the poorest people in the world

6 Jun

Andrew Mitchell was International Development Secretary from 2010 to 2012, and is MP for Sutton Coldfield.

The Prime Minister deserves credit and all our thanks. He won a decisive election victory, unlocked the Brexit logjam and has steered our country through both the darkest days of the pandemic and the resulting economic slump. He inherited a difficult situation and was dealt an even more difficult hand. But this week, he has the opportunity to dominate the global stage and write his name into the history books, as host of a global summit which could kickstart a new era of multilateralism and international cooperation.

The success of Britain’s vaccine roll out, our strong economic rebound and the strength of our public finances, after a decade of responsible Conservative management, means that we can face the future with more confidence than most of the rest of the world. We entered this global crisis as the fifth richest nation on earth, and are emerging in the very same position.

We have experienced more than our fair share of misery and heartache over the past year. Every single one of the deaths Britain suffered during our national emergency was a personal tragedy and a devastating blow for bereaved families. But we were fortunate to have a Prime Minister and Chancellor who acted quickly and decisively to protect livelihoods, save businesses and limit preventable loss of life.

Others are less lucky. The World Bank estimates that 100 million more people have been pushed into poverty as a result of the pandemic. Poor countries could not provide furlough. They could not facilitate bounce back loans and they were not able to pre-order vaccines.

The poorest countries faced the pandemic already on their knees. Yemen was already on the brink of famine. Ethiopia is sliding once again into that abyss. South Sudan faces a year just as bleak as the last. But Britain is adding to their misery. We can’t balance the books on the back of the world’s poor. Yet we are slashing aid to those in the grips of humanitarian catastrophe. A quarter of a million women and children in Yemen that Britain fed last year will now be left to stave.

Not only did every Conservative MP elected at the last election stand on a party manifesto endorsing the 0.7 per cent commitment, but it remains the law of the land, which Parliament passed in 2015.

The argument that a nation such as Britain simply can’t afford this is entirely disingenuous. The cut to 0.5 per cent represents just one per cent of what the Treasury is borrowing this year. It is no coincidence that the motion Parliament will vote on next week is signed by every former Public Accounts Committee Chairman. As David Cameron has said: “this is a promise we don’t need to break.”

Britain’s funding for the UN’s reproductive health programme has been cut by 85 per cent. The UN says this aid would have helped prevent around 250,000 maternal and child deaths. We made a promise to women but when they return to have implants removed they will find the clinics closed and the trained medical staff gone.

The Prime Minister’s personal priority for aid is girls’ education but British funding has been cut by 25 per cent. While Unicef, the United Nations Children’s fund, has had a cut from Britain of 60 per cent. We made a promise to provide 12 year of education to every girl and now we are closing their schools and sacking their teachers.

Funding for clean water is being cut by 80 per cent in the middle of a pandemic. Ten million people stand to lose out on gaining access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene facilities this year, say WaterAid.

Britain is the only G7 country cutting aid. The French are set to reach 0.7 per cent, the Germans will exceed 0.7 per cent this year and the Americans are increasing aid by $14 billon. And developing countries that Britain needs to make commitments at the COP26 climate summit later this year are being alienated at the very moment we need a global agreement to tackle the global climate emergency. The policy makes no economic sense and no diplomatic sense.

Neither does it make political sense. Seventy five organisations across the country have come together to campaign for action in Covid, injustice, climate and nature. This Crack The Crises coalition represents tens of millions of ordinary people in the Women’s Institute, the RSPB, students unions and household name charities. As Margaret Thatcher and Cameron proved, the Conservative Party wins successive elections when we build coalitions of voters that endure. Our electoral coalition needs to be based on our enduring principles and on an agenda which unites Britain, not one that plays voters off against one another or seeks to divide communities.

For the good of our country, the good of our party and for Britain’s standing in the world, now is the time to keep our promise and retake our place as a global leader, with the Prime Minister as a historic host of a historic G7 summit.

Andrew Mitchell: I used to be adamantly opposed to all forms of assisted dying. Here’s why I changed my views.

22 Jul

Andrew Mitchell was International Development Secretary from 2010 to 2012. He is the MP for Sutton Coldfield.

The All Party Group on choice at the end of life – composed of members of both the Commons and the Lords – held its first ever virtual meeting last week.

That more than 60 members of Parliament chose to attend at 9am is an eloquent testimony to the seriousness with which Members of Parliament are examining the issue. At the meeting I agreed to be the co-Chair of the group along with my Labour colleague Karin Smyth, the Member of Parliament for Bristol South.

When I entered the House of Commons in 1987, I was adamantly opposed to all forms of assisted dying. But over the years (perhaps it is part of the ageing process) I have completely changed my mind.

Let me explain why.

It is first and foremost because of my experience as a constituency MP. I have sat in my office in the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield and heard stories from so many of my constituents. Often with tears pouring down their faces, they have given me deeply intimate details of the last days of someone they loved but who died a miserable and sometimes very painful death.

By the end of these meetings, often with tears coursing down my own face, I was invariably left with two overwhelming feelings: the first is that we would not let an animal we loved be treated in such a way and, second, I do not myself wish to go through the sort of end of life experience that my constituents have so often eloquently described.

And just as I would not want it for myself, I no longer want members of my family or those I represent in Parliament to have to navigate so awful an end.

I believe the time is approaching when Parliament must examine this again. This is not a party political issue subject to whipping; it is an issue of conscience where members of the House of Commons hold different views reached entirely honourably on the basis of their own personal beliefs.

Assisted dying could be the great liberal reform achieved by this government. Public support for assisted dying is overwhelming and consistent across all parts of society. Out of the British public, 84 per cent support assisted dying including 86 per cent of Conservative voters. Of Conservative Party members, 67 per cent support assisted dying. It is interesting also to note that 79 per cent of people of faith and 86 per cent of people with disabilities support assisted dying.

Support is also highest in the North East, East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber. It is lowest in London. So this is not a liberal metropolitan issue; it is one that unites the country.

Assisted dying is legal in 10 states in the United States of America (some for more than 20 years), two states in Australia, nationwide in Canada and likely to be nationwide in New Zealand later this year. It is interesting to note that in no country with legalised assisted dying has the law been repealed. And in Britain we now have the opportunity to look at the differing legislative approaches in all of these countries, evaluate them, and deliver the best possible results for our constituents.

Consider these facts:

  • Everyday 17 people in the UK will die in pain and distress that cannot be prevented by even the very best palliative care.
  • Hospices now acknowledge that some dying people are in so much pain medication doesn’t work.
  • One Britain travels to Switzerland for assisted dying every week at a cost of around £10,000, the expense, the difficulty of traveling when terminally ill and the challenges of obtaining the necessary documentation put this option out of the reach of all but a few.
  • Those who accompany their loved ones to Switzerland run the risk of police prosecution. Ann Whaley, married to her husband Geoffrey for more than 60 years, was interviewed under caution by police officers.
  • Around 300 terminally ill people take their own lives every year behind closed doors. The effect of these suicides on their family and on responders can be devastating. Some of them have gone wrong, which has added to the immense distress. Mavis Eccleston helped her husband of almost 60 years, Dennis, who was dying in agony to take his own life and was later prosecuted for murder. She was acquitted by a jury but only after 18 months of investigation. This brought huge distress to her and her family.

There is also a risk in maintaining the status quo as attitudes among the public change. The increased reporting of cases undermines public confidence in the law. Almost half of police and crime commissioners including five Conservative PCC’s have called on the Government to review the law saying the current law does not protect vulnerable people.

The medical profession’s views are shifting too: the Royal College of Physicians moved its position to neutrality in 2019 and the Royal College of General Practitioners who surveyed their membership this year found a surge in support for assisted dying – 41 per cent compared to just five per cent in 2013.

As assisted dying becomes more established and understood in other English-speaking countries, demands in the UK for the law to change will continue to grow.

Many of us hope that the Health Select Committee under Jeremy Hunt, its distinguished and experienced Chair, might consider an inquiry which took evidence from the various sections of society that are most affected: dying people and their families, police officers, healthcare professionals and coroners, so that the issue can be explored further.

The Health Select Committee will currently be heavily preoccupied with the Covid crisis but perhaps in due course they may feel this is a subject which they are well placed to examine.

So finally, what are the modest changes those of us who want reform are seeking?

  • We want to give people who are terminally ill (and also in the final months of their lives) the option of dying on their own terms. We want this to be an active choice by a rational person to end their own life as they wish.
  • The change in the law we propose would contain stringent safeguards to protect people; it would only be accessible to mentally competent adults.
  • Two doctors would assess the person making the request to ensure that they met the eligibility criteria under the law. They would explain all other care options in full.
  • A High Court judge would examine the person’s request and make sure that it was being made voluntarily – free from any pressure or coercion.
  • Once the request was approved, a doctor would be able to prescribe life-ending medication for the person who would then take it themselves under the supervision of a doctor or another healthcare professional.
  • Healthcare professionals who wanted to exercise conscientious objection would, of course, be able to do so.
  • There would be clear reporting procedures for doctors as well as monitoring through an annual report published by the Government.

The law change that we propose is based on one that has operated in Oregon in America for 23 years. We would like to add additional safeguards built in to make it right for the UK. There have been no cases of abuse of Oregon’s law and no extension of its eligibility criteria throughout these 23 years. This model of assisted dying legislation has since been adopted in nine other US states and passed by lawmakers in Australia and New Zealand.

Wherever you stand on this issue, let us now have a calm and measured debate on the best way forward. I believe this is a reform whose time is approaching.