Streeting asks officials to analyse costs around law change on assisted dying

The Health Secretary has ordered the Department of Health to analyse the costs of implementing any change in the law on assisted dying.

The Cabinet minister – who plans to vote against the assisted dying Bill when it is debated later this month – has suggested there may need to be cuts to other NHS services if the changes are brought in.

And Wes Streeting said there was a “chilling slippery slope argument” if people felt compelled to end their own lives as a cost-saving measure.

He said: “Now that we’ve seen the Bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward, because I’m very clear that regardless of my own personal position or my own vote, my department and the whole government will respect the will of Parliament if people vote for assisted dying.

“That work is now under way, so I can’t give you a precise figure today.”

Mr Streeting was asked about the costs associated with assisted dying as a new service for patients, but also whether there may be savings – potentially – if patients need less care because they choose to end their own lives.

He said: “You do touch on the slippery slope argument, which is the potential for cost savings if people choose to opt for assisted dying rather than stay in the care of the care providers or the NHS.

“I think that is a chilling slippery slope argument, and I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere … money, whether that’s relatives or the NHS.

“And I think that’s one of the issues that MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote. But this is a free vote, the Government’s position is neutral.

“The Prime Minister is very clearly studying the Bill before deciding on his own position.

“And I have enormous respect for Kim Leadbeater (who is introducing the Bill) and many of my friends and colleagues who are taking a different view to me, including people I normally agree with on almost everything else.”

Mr Streeting, who was commenting after delivering a speech to the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, said there were “choices and trade-offs”, adding that “any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities”.

He added: “Now that doesn’t mean people should vote against it on that basis.

“People need to weigh up this choice in the way that we’re weighing up all these other choices at the moment.

“And you know, the point I made in my speech is, you know this is a system that always uses the word ‘and’ and ‘more’ and I think people can see the state of public finances, the state of our public services, and we do need to be in the business of making choices.”

Earlier, Mr Streeting told Times Radio that a change in the law to allow assisted dying would be a “big change”.

He added: “There would be resource implications for doing it. And those choices would come at the expense of other choices.

“And of course, we’d need to work through with the medical profession what would be a very new way of working.

“No-one should be compelled, for example, to take part in assisted dying if they’ve got moral or ethical objections as clinicians. That certainly would be one of my red lines.

“And that’s one of the reasons why, whatever my own vote on this, I do welcome the debate. I welcome the debate in principle and also welcome the debate in practice.”

Asked if the law change does go through, whether he will have to find the money from somewhere else, Mr Streeting said: “Yep. To govern is to choose.

“If Parliament chooses to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment. And we’d have to work through those implications.”

Downing Street would not be drawn into saying whether Mr Streeting was right to say a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services.

Asked about Mr Streeting’s comments suggesting a new law could jeopardise NHS services, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Ultimately this is a matter for Parliament to decide and that is why it is going to be a free vote, and Parliament will debate the principles and merits of assisted dying and the issues surrounding the Bill.”

Asked if the Health Secretary had reflected the Government’s views, the spokesman said: “Ultimately, as the Health Secretary himself recognised, these are issues which Parliament are going to debate and then Government will respect the views of Parliament, but we are getting ahead of parliamentary process, which in terms of debating haven’t begun yet.”

On whether Mr Streeting was in line with the guidance from the Cabinet Secretary which says “though ministers need not resile from previously stated views when directly asked about them, they should exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate”, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The Cabinet Secretary’s letter recognised the need for ministers not to resile from previously stated views, they understood that MPs across the House will need to be able to explain to their constituents their position and the PM understands it’s an incredibly emotive issue, and understandably, MPs have strong views on it and that is why it is ultimately a free vote.”

Put to him that the Health Secretary is changing his “previously stated views” because he backed the last attempt to change the law, the spokesman said: “Ultimately this is a matter for Parliament to decide and that is why it is going to be a free vote and Parliament will debate the principles and merits of assisted dying and the issues surrounding the Bill.”

“That’s why this issue is fraught with a number of ethical considerations as well as practical considerations. This is a finely balanced judgment.”

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has described her proposed legislation as the “most robust” in the world.

High-profile supporters of a change in the law include Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill and revealed in December that she had joined Dignitas in Switzerland because of the current law.

The broadcaster has hailed the “wonderful” Bill, but acknowledged it is likely to come into effect too late for her.