Image – Wikimedia Commons: Chamber of the House of Commons
By Liam Gibson, SPUC Policy and Legal Officer
Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is set to return to the House of Commons on Friday, 13 June. If the next act in this political theatre is as chaotic as the debate on 16 May, it is likely to generate more heat than light.
From Ms Leadbeater’s rambling opening statement to the abrupt conclusion of the first day of the Bill’s Report Stage, it was obvious that a great many MPs were concerned that this dangerously flawed legislation was being rushed into law without proper scrutiny. Critics of the Bill have described it as shambolic and the proceedings as Parliament at its worst.
Technical support from the Government
MPs tabled so many amendments on such a wide range of issues that the Speaker’s office had collected them into two groups. Around 500 amendments were submitted during the Bill’s committee stage, but only about 120 were accepted for consideration. However, during the debate, Stephen Kinnock, the Minister for Care, revealed that the amendments presented by Kim Leadbeater had received “technical drafting support from the Government”. While claiming to be neutral and making no judgment regarding the other amendments, Mr Kinnock stressed that “the Government are unable to confirm that those amendments are fully workable, effective or enforceable” since they had not received such help.
Responding to the obvious double standard, Rebecca Smith, who tabled an amendment to require doctors to screen patients for the risk factors associated with depression and suicidal ideation as part of the assessment process, said:
“I do not recall ever being offered an opportunity to pass my amendments to Government officials to ensure that they would be workable. Given the scope of what we are debating this afternoon, it sounds very much like any amendments that have not been tabled by the honourable Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) had no chance of being taken forward unless she accepted them.”
Persistent problems
One MP after another stood up to voice their concerns with the significant flaws within the Bill – the inadequate level of training to be offered to doctors on spotting coercion, the lack of legal protection for hospices and care homes which may be forced to close for refusing to provide assisted suicide and the persistent questions surrounding the assessment of the mental capacity of vulnerable groups, especially people with learning difficulties.
The most controversial change to the Bill since its Second Reading last November was the scrapping of its flagship safeguard; oversight of the process by a High Court judge. That role is now to be performed by a committee of experts (a social worker, a psychiatrist and a senior lawyer) that critics have dubbed “death panels”. After listing a series of problems with the way the panels are constituted, Sir Jeremy Wright spoke at length about his proposals to give them the power to gather evidence and conduct investigations. He concluded:
“This particular phase of the process can only be a safeguard if we enable the panel to do its job properly. The Bill’s provisions are currently defective in that respect, and it is extraordinarily important that we make them effective in order for the panel to do its job properly.”
A discourtesy to the House
Immediately after Sir Jeremy had finished, Simon Hoare, the MP for North Dorset, drew attention to the fact that Kim Leadbeater had left the debate, saying:
“We have just heard an important speech from a former Attorney General on some key legal points… Is it not a discourtesy to the House and those who have spent some considerable time working on amendments, on both sides of the argument, for her not to be here to hear what they are advocating?”
Despite her apparent lack of interest in what her fellow MPs had to say, Ms Leadbeater later wrote to them lamenting social media commentary she described as not “particularly well-informed or accurate”. In the letter, posted on X by the Spectator’s James Heale, she offered to explain why she had taken “certain policy decisions” with the legal advice of the Government.
By the time the veteran assisted suicide campaigner Kit Malthouse tabled a closure motion, the debate had lasted almost three hours and 30 minutes. Nevertheless, the frustration of those MPs who were denied the opportunity to express their opinions was obvious to everyone.
The shambolic management of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has led some commentators to conclude that a Private Members’ Bill is an unsuitable vehicle for legislation that threatens to introduce profound social change. However, as Stephen Kinnock’s remarks make clear, Kim Leadbeater is receiving technical support from the Government. Instead, the chaos surrounding the Bill and her refusal to address criticisms of it reflects the inherent problems that arise when politicians attempt to give agents of the State the power to authorise the deliberate killing of its citizens. The sponsors of the Bill claim their campaign is based on the principle of autonomy and self-determination. Evidence from both Europe and North America shows that, paradoxically, assisted suicide leads to an increase in the paternalistic power of the medical profession above its last limit, above the law.
A second day of debate on amendments to the Leadbeater Bill is scheduled for 13 June, followed by a vote at its Third Reading either on the same day or on 20 June. The dangers of this Bill cannot be overestimated, but it can still be stopped. Advice on how to lobby your Member of Parliament can be found here.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
