Campaign reply - World Cancer Day

A number of constituents have contacted me about World Cancer Day and the Cancer Research UK drop in event in Parliament on 6 February.

I am committed to helping do all we can to fight against this terrible disease.

The event is in my diary and I will certainly attend, Parliamentary business allowing.

Campaign reply - Assisted dying: A family’s perspective on why the law urgently needs to change

I have recently been contacted by a number of constituents asking me to attend a parliamentary drop-on event which calls for legalisation of assisted dying.

I appreciate concerns raised on this very sensitive issue. Coping with terminal illness is distressing and difficult both for the patient and their families. These cases are truly moving and evoke the highest degree of compassion and emotion.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people on both sides of this issue. I have considered my own views very carefully before reaching a conclusion. My personal belief is that I could not support any legislation that would legalise assisted dying. There are many factors that bring me to this view.

The law, which already makes provision for such circumstances, is working, and does not need changing. Assisting or encouraging suicide is a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 for which the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) has discretion not to prosecute in certain compassionate cases. 

Guidelines published by the DPP are primarily concerned with advising the Crown Prosecution Service on the factors they need to consider when deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute a person for assisting or encouraging another to commit suicide.  The DPP’s policy offers important and sensitive guidance on when to prosecute, but makes clear that assisting a person to die is still illegal and anyone doing this faces the risk of a murder charge if prosecuted.

If, as a society, we made assisted suicide legal, we would in my view, be fundamentally changing the very foundation of our civil society. We would be legitimising the fears and anxieties of so many sick and vulnerable people who worry that they are a burden on those around them and on society more widely. As a compassionate society, our response to suicidal feelings must never be a lethal injection.

For every person that we might consider to have a clear and settled wish to end their lives, there are countless others who are vulnerable, despairing and often lacking in support who may feel under pressure – internal or external – to go through with this decision.

This is the main reason that no major disability group favours a change in the law. This Bill legitimises the idea that suicide is a solution for disability and severe sickness. Where assisted suicide is legal around the world, the data shows that those who choose suicide are almost invariably disabled. They need assistance to live, not assistance to die.

Those who support assisted dying often point to safeguards as the remedy to this problem. But, as years of debate on this issue in the House of Lords has shown, there is no safeguard that would be sufficient to stop a person who feels a burden on their family, friend or caregivers from ending their life; nor can doctors accurately assess this, or worse, pressure or abuse which does regrettably exist, in certain cases.

This is why none of the Royal Medical Colleges support a change in the law. In fact, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs and the Royal College of Physicians, actively oppose such a change for that very reason. Legalising assisting dying would fundamentally change the nature of the doctor/patient relationship. A doctor is not a detective and cannot reasonably be expected to investigate all of the relevant social factors involved in such a grave decision. That would take a close, consistent and long-term relationship which very few doctors have with their patients today. Any suggestion that this fundamental problem can be lessened by the arbitration on by a High Court judge is similarly groundless, as the judge would have even less knowledge and capacity to judge whether pressure, overt or covert, had been placed on the individual.

I am also concerned that, as has been the case in other countries, legalising assisted suicide would lead to demands for legalisation of other forms of euthanasia – for example in Belgium, where in 2002, a euthanasia law was passed for adults, in 2014 – a law was passed enabling children to be euthanized. In Oregon – upon which this assisted suicide law is based - the extension of their assisted suicide law is currently being considered.

In Britain, we lead the world in palliative care. Our response to the physical and emotional pain of terminal illness must be to show compassion by extending and developing this further. Not by letting people die when they most need encouragement and assistance to live.

My view is that if we were to legalise assisted dying we would be crossing a line that would lead to the devaluing of life. This is not something I am prepared to support. Therefore I will not be attending the event.

Campaign response – Will you support The ONE Campaign?

There has been much discussion about our international aid budget lately. Some constituents who are keen to see the money being put into good use have emailed me to ask if I would support the ONE Campaign, which urges the government to guarantee that all UK aid is effective, transparent, and targeted at ending extreme poverty.

I am proud of the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of our budget in international aid, which is helping to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing countries and in the UK.

British aid goes towards vaccinating children from preventable diseases, enabling them to go to school and helping people work their way out of poverty, as well as providing food, nutrition and medical care.

Foreign aid also provides added value to our security and trade policies. Foreign development assistance can often make an important contribution towards in supporting stability and sustainable development for the recipient country, leading to better foreign relations and prospect for a more preferential trade deal with them.

It is in our interest to maintain our foreign aid policy because it also helps to promote UK interests abroad and ensure our position as the world’s leading soft power nation is secure.

I would like to see the Government maintain its commitment on international aid and will be speaking up for its ability to transform lives and tackle the root causes of global issues.

But I also see the importance of holding the government to account on this matter, which is why I am pleased to inform my constituents that I will be supporting the ONE Campaign and will continue to ask the Department for International Development to give the British public a full account of the way our overseas aid budget.

Newspaper column 30 January 2019 - The EU Citizens Settled Status Scheme

This week will again be a significant time in Parliament as we will once again be considering the way forward for delivering on the decision of the EU referendum and leaving the EU.

I have previously made my position on this issue clear in this column, and as votes will be taking place on Tuesday evening, which falls after the print deadline for the paper, I will await the outcome of events this week and if appropriate comment on them in the paper next week.

However, there were some significant developments on the UK’s preparations for leaving the EU last week with the launch of the EU Citizens Settled Status Scheme, which opened for registration last Wednesday.

This scheme allows EU citizens who currently live and work in the UK to register to remain here. It represents a generous offer to EU citizens and is an important step towards guaranteeing their legal rights after we leave the EU, deal or no deal.

It is important that we send a clear message to all EU citizens currently resident in the UK: you are welcome to stay and we want you to stay.

In Cornwall, EU citizens contribute to many of our industries, from tourism to agriculture as well working in the public sector such as the NHS. I was therefore pleased last week to add my name to an open letter from the Cornwall Leadership Board to all EU citizens in Cornwall that we want them to know they are welcome to stay.

This scheme will enable them to continue making these important contributions to our economy while allowing the Government to respect the results of the 2016 referendum by taking back control of our immigration policy.

The scheme is open to all EU citizens and their family members currently residing in the UK subject to certain criteria.

The Home Office has promised a fast and straightforward online application process.

The original fee of the scheme was set to at £65 per application, with a reduced fee of £32.50 for under-16s. However following discussions with stakeholders the Government has announced that the application fee will be waived so that there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay.

If any St Austell and Newquay residents or employers have any questions regarding their application for Settled Status, they are welcome to get in touch with my office via the details below and I will be more than happy to do my best to assist them.

I am pleased that the government have taken this important step, in good time ahead of us leaving the EU, and that whatever happens in the coming weeks EU citizens can easily secure their right to remain and continue to contribute to our communities and local economy.

My team and I are here to serve the whole constituency and work hard to make a real difference to the lives of everyone needing support. The office is open to the public Monday – Friday 10.00am – 4.00pm (no appointment necessary). If there is an issue you would like my assistance on then please, either visit the office or contact me on either 01726 829379 or office@stevedouble.org.uk. Additionally, I hold regular, appointment only, advice surgeries across the constituency. Dates of these can be found at: www.stevedouble.org.uk/events

Campaign response - 'Brexit debate on Tuesday'

Some constituents  have contacted me with a campaign  email entitled “Brexit debate on Tuesday” asking me to support amendments that will delay Brexit and discount a ‘no deal’ outcome.

I note the genuinely held views of those who are concerned at the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. However, many of the concerns expressed are based on speculation, assumptions and worst case scenarios. Many of these predictions are made by the same people who have be consistently wrong in the past including when they predicted a recession and mass job losses if we voted to leave the EU. However, since the referendum in June 2016 the UK economy has continued to grow with record levels of employment, inward investment and tax receipts to the Treasury.

Phrases such as “Crashing out of the EU” are unhelpful and wide of the mark. A great deal of preparation has already been made to ensure that if we do leave without a deal. The legislation (article 50 and the EU Withdrawal Act) passed long ago and with a significant majority of the House voting for it makes provision that if we are unable to agree a deal with the EU then we leave on WTO terms. It is not my preferred option and let us all believe the EU (as is their custom) will negotiate with the UK in a meaningful way in the closing days before we leave on 29 March. If not the path forward has been established.

My reasoning for supporting Brexit during the referendum and last election is because I firmly believe it is the right path for the UK to take. However, more importantly, it is not just my view, it is the democratic decision of the British people in the referendum, including a majority of almost 2-1 of voters in our constituency. That decision must be honoured. Change will bring its challenges, it always does, but I am confident that the UK is well placed to face those challenges and set a course for prosperity in the future.

Whilst I note your concerns they are based on the scenarios set out by those who having lost the argument and the referendum continue to spread gloom. The best way I can represent all constituents is by honouring the pledges I made during the referendum and the last election that I would do all I could to ensure the UK leaves the EU and becomes a sovereign nation again. That after all is the wishes of the clear majoity in the constituency.

Campaign response - 'Vote against a deal'

Some constituents have written to me with a campaign email that opens with " As you will be aware, the House of Commons will soon be asked to vote once again on the Brexit deal negotiated by the government."

In the recent vote I did not support the proposed deal. Any deal has to honour the spirit of the referendum result and thus my vote against it.

It may be a deal comes forward that achieves that and it will be sensible for the UK and the EU to have a mutually beneficial agreement. In the absence of that then article 50 already sets out that we leave with no deal. Whilst that is not my preferred option it is an agreed and appropriate way forward.

The EU's standard practice of brinkmanship is well known. If they choose to offer something worthy of support then so be it. If not the road is clear for no deal.

Campaign Response - Amendment E to Withdrawal Agreement

A few constituents have sent a campaign  email asking me to vote for Amendment E tabled by Yvette Cooper.

I will be voting against it for a number of reasons:

Its true motivation is to delay and hinder both parliament and Brexit – the last thing the country needs.

It would seriously weaken our negotiating positon with the EU – an irrational and totally unproductive move.

Article 50, passed by a big majority in the House set out that in the event of not securing a deal with the EU we would leave with no deal and whilst that is not my preferred option it clearly establishes the way forward.

Perhaps more importantly it would override centuries of well establish Parliamentary procedures and ultimately undermine the stability of our democratic institutions that have served our nation well and been respected the world over. Anything that seeks to damage that is unworthy and thus it fails on all accounts.