Concerns have been raised about the scrutiny process of the assisted suicide bill going through Parliament, as the committee tasked with examining it got off to a controversial start, yesterday.
After MPs voted in November to give the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill a Second Reading, it has passed to a Committee appointed by its sponsor, the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.
Ms Leadbeater has already faced accusations of stacking the Committee in her favour. Journalist Madeline Grant pointed out that as well as over-representing MPs who voted in favour of the Bill, and excluding key opponents with relevant expertise, “Six out of nine committee opponents are backbench MPs from the 2024 intake. No doubt they will work hard to scrutinise the bill, but their lack of legislative experience is undeniable.”
“Does sitting in private pass the sniff test?”
The Committee met for the first time yesterday, and began with an amendment by Ms Leadbeater that the Committee sit in private to discuss which witnesses would be called. It emerged that MPs had only had notice of this the night before.
Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for East Wiltshire and a key opponent of assisted suicide, argued that it was clearly in the public interest that such a monumental issue be debated in public and that “the public should understand why witnesses have been chosen and why other people have not, and if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly”.
Despite his objections, the Committee agreed to meet in private, and the public broadcast was switched off.
Nikki da Costa, the former head of legislative affairs at No 10, tweeted: “Does sitting in private pass the sniff test? There is a clear public interest case that the public should know how witnesses were chosen and if there are concerns how they’ve been addressed. Particularly as this is only time during the bill’s scrutiny, external voices heard.”
The choice of witnesses chosen to give evidence has also caused concern. Mr Kruger pointed out that “of the almost 60 names that have been put to us, 38 of them are in favour of the Bill and the principle of assisted dying, whereas there are only 20 who are opposed”.
It also emerged during the debate that all three of the witnesses called from Australia are in favour of the principle of assisted dying, and no experts have been chosen from Canada at all.
“This is setting off so many alarm bells now.”
However, the most extraordinary scenes emerged when Naz Shah MP tabled an amendment to include a witness from the Royal College of Psychiatry. Despite the Bill touching closely on matters of coercion, mental health and capacity, the committee voted 14 to 8 against this inclusion.
This caused shock on social media. Palliative care expert Katherine Sleeman posted on X, “I’m still stunned that the committee for a Bill that quite literally rewrites the Suicide Act of 1961 voted against inviting the Royal College of Psychiatrists to give oral evidence 🤯.”
Former Government Minister James Cleverly said: “This is setting off so many alarm bells now.”
The drama didn’t end with the Committee’s decision. After hours of backlash on social media, Kim Leadbeater seems to have made a u-turn, with Naz Shah tweeting this morning: “Welcome @kimleadbeater adding @rcpsychto the witness list for her PMB for Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, thank you 🙏🏽.”
Apart from the content of the debate, the tone of the proceedings was also commented upon. Journalist Dan Hitchens said, “Extraordinary opening to the assisted suicide committee, so testy that the chair had to intervene.”
Many noted Ms Leadbeater’s defensive and hostile responses to Danny Kruger’s interventions. Nikki da Costa noted that “Kim Leadbeater [was] clearly offended at being challenged. Lots of ‘points of order’ from her – a quite angry tone to her remarks.” Another journalist called her “irascible and prickly”.
Following this first sitting, MPs are already concerned. Simon Hoare posted: “The spirit of the 2nd Reading Debate was the Committee would be ‘open’ & hear from the full range of views & expertise. Many colleagues supported the Bill ONLY on the premise of a forensic & open Committee process. This all seems very far from the spirit of the 2nd Reading”.
James Cleverly added: “This is not reassuring me that getting good legislation is the priority for the proponents of the bill. I’ve seen this before. People become so focused on getting the win, they lose sight of the importance of getting a balance of views.”
