Back in November, MPs with doubts over the assisted suicide bill were told to wait and see. When introducing the bill, Labour’s Kim Leadbeater told the House of Commons that voting for it was not so much a vote for assisted suicide as “a vote to continue the debate. It is a vote to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny in Committee.” That was the deal, and many wavering MPs seemed willing to take it.
Yesterday, the first meeting of the committee, was Leadbeater’s chance to show just how strong that scrutiny would be. First, we learnt that Leadbeater had introduced a last-minute motion: the crucial part of the meeting — the debate on which witnesses to call — would be behind closed doors. Journalists and the public would be asked to leave; Hansard would be left blank; those of us watching parliamentlive.tv would see a message reading “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is currently in private.” Leadbeater said this was to protect the “privacy” of witnesses, though other committee members responded that they couldn’t see why that would be an issue. But there was another aspect to the story.
As we discovered during the public parts of the meeting, a major row was breaking out within the committee. The root cause is the powers given to Leadbeater with a private member’s bill such as this. With a Government bill, the pro side and the anti side both pick witnesses. Here, although Leadbeater asked for suggestions, the list was all up to her; she sent round a provisional list last week, and then an updated version at 10 o’clock yesterday morning. While the committee had a chance to amend it, Leadbeater had picked the committee as well, and in yesterday’s votes all challenges to her were easily defeated.
So why all the debate over the list? Simply put, it contains a surprisingly large number of vocal advocates for assisted suicide, and a noticeably small number of opponents — or even neutral figures who might raise difficult points.
There are eight witnesses from other countries, and they all back a change in the law. For example, there is no room for Theo Boer, a member of the Dutch Health Council who once enthusiastically worked for the euthanasia review board but now thinks his country made a terrible mistake.
Of the nine lawyers invited to speak, six are active supporters of assisted suicide and at least two of the remainder seem to be neutral. The committee will hear from Sir Nicholas Mostyn, the former senior judge who backs a law change. It will not hear from former senior judges who have criticised the bill — such as Sir James Munby, who says the safeguards fall “lamentably short”, or Sir David Bodey. There is nobody representing a disability organisation when the biggest, Disability Rights UK, leads a coalition of 350 such organisations against a change in the law.
Labour MP Simon Opher defended the imbalance, claiming that “a split of 38 to 20 […] is appropriate and actually reflects the vote in the House.” But the House split 55-45 just on whether to keep debating the bill. This is 66-34 in favour of passing it. And if scrutiny is the goal, then it should really be the other way round, given that it’s your opponents who are more likely to make you clarify points and address weaknesses.
The most startling moment of all was when Labour MP Naz Shah proposed an amendment to hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists on crucial questions such as capacity and coercion. Leadbeater’s committee voted it down, by 14 votes to eight. Only this morning, after a storm of bad publicity, did Leadbeater decide to invite the Royal College after all.
Some MPs were alarmed by all this. Conservative James Cleverly tweeted yesterday: “This is not reassuring me that getting good legislation is the priority for the proponents of the bill.” Fellow Tory Saqib Bhatti claimed that it “completely undermines the promises made at second reading […] Plenty of MPs relied on those promises and lent their votes accordingly.”
How many MPs share those concerns? We won’t know until Third Reading, possibly as soon as April, when MPs get their last chance to vote. Then, Leadbeater’s strategy may turn out to have been recklessly overconfident — or brilliantly ruthless. Either way, yesterday undermined the idea that a Parliamentary committee is an impartial process operating above the messy realities of politics. To all appearances, Kim Leadbeater is playing to win.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFor what’s worth, I’m a uk anaesthetist who spends most of my time doing pain management & goes across the road to the local hospice when they run out of tricks (which is v rarely).
Recently (Dec 2024) went to conference run by the UK faculty of pain medicine (FPMRCOA) where 1 of the speakers was Ilora Finlay, who’s a Welsh cross bench peer, professor of palliative care & previously worked as GP & in anaesthetics. I’m embarrassed to say I’d never heard of her before the conference.
Long story, short: She electrified the audience. She cut through all the emotive BS, pretty much dismantled the argument that we must pass this bill while tipping our hats to patient autonomy, rights etc. Historically, UK palliative care was set up with 30% NHS funding & 70% charitable, notionally to keep the palliative movement autonomous. In practice, it’s massively underfunded & we don’t have the provision of enough palliative beds or home care teams, so timely access is a bit of a lottery. Wales pretty much does get timely access as centrally/adequately funded (good result of devolution).
It’s utterly f***ed in Canada/some US states & to a lesser extent in Belgium/Holland, & far from perfect in Oz.
Wales- v little call for Right to Die because easy to get effective palliative care.
Her bottom line was be v careful what you vote for or you’ll end up with a dystopian monster like the Canadians have got, where assisted suicide is highly economical to the state.
For years, I was all in favour of the Bill. Very much less so now.
If it’s now being decided what’s best for us behind closed doors- run screaming for the hills. I also voted Labour as best of a bad bunch & the construction of this Bill shoes what a shower they’re turning out to be…
We’re in the middle of a safeguarding crisis in the UK – scandal after scandal, from rape and grooming gangs, to the Southport atrocity and puberty blockers. All safeguarding failures by the relevant institutions. And here we go, following an intransigent ideologue right into another one.
Whatever one’s position on assisted death, there is no way we can trust Leadbetter, her government, or any of our other politicians and our wider great and good with it.
They’ll be bumping off white OAPs in the name of Equity for life expectancy in no time.
Anyone who supports giving the UK state powers to euthanise its people is a lunatic
If somebody want to avoid suffering and be helped to die it’s none of your. This bill makes me glad I voted Labour
Gutsy to admit you actually voted for this useless gaggle of authoritarian incompetents. Chapeau!
They may not be covering themselves in glory elsewhere, but if they can get this law up, it is a feather in their chapeau.
The Tories were worse and corrupt. Furthermore I want a choice at the end of my life.
What if it turns out to not be your choice, but a matter of expediency since you are no longer considered viable by the powers that be?
What if it doesn’t and what if I am in unbearable pain and want it?
I haven’t followed the arguments but is there something in the proposed legislation that allows it not to be your choice?
No, there isn’t.
You already have that. Why drag others into having to forgo their morals and ethics in order to actively take part in ending your life? For many it is basic ethics. Will they be forced agains their will to take part in this? There already is end of life care, that with the use of drugs eases the dying process.
There will be plenty of people whose morality will comfortably allow them to participate in this process. Me for one, although I am unlikely to be called upon, as I am not a medical professional.
This is a Bill which will allow a doctor to kill you. If the essential questions of capacity and concerns about escalation are repressed at the outset, we have no hope that those safeguards to be put in place (if any) will not also be similarly ‘managed’. The feeble comments of the opposing MPs are also depressing – exactly who is defending our future safety against the carelessness of Leadbeater’s personal ambition?
Peoples’ personal choice is none of your business and a large majority of tbe public support assisted dying.
If the experience of Canada is anything to go by ‘personal choice’ won’t always be the deciding factor.
Are you Canadian? It’s just that the Canadians I speak to don’t seem to have a problem with the Canadian laws.
There is no problem with the Canad laws other than for those who have made a hysterical talking point of them. Nobody is forced despite what opponents claim. Furthermore most Canadians are happy with it and Canada is a democracy.
You don’t know Canada very well. Canadians are well-known for–many even admit–being politically apathetic. Woke propagandising by the Liberals under Trudeau hasn’t improved things. 1/20th of all deaths is no joke. Along with having no abortion restrictions, Canada is not example to be followed. I say this having personally witnessed the negative effects of MAID on family members.
You want a system for someone who wishes to die but needs to be assisted in this endeavour? Well ok, but this creates a situation whereby a death is facilitated through and administered by others and ‘personal choice’ can then be muddied by social and personal pressures. This is what requires a thorough discussion. Your desire to have your own personal choice doesn’t negate the wish to protect against the potential abuses of others.
This is clearly more about Leadbeater’s personal ambition and desire to be remembered like Leo Abse than it is about making good law.
….apart from the fact that it is exceptionally good (and unarguably popular) law.
Then why is she preventing proper scrutiny of the bill?
She is probably trying to stop the passing of the bill being delayed. After all, similar laws are working fine elsewhere. What’s the big deal?
The exclusion of any disability advocacy group is telling. Those who support State-sanctioned and assisted suicide are desperate to avoid admitting that the most profound civic shift inherent in this legislation is the way it explicitly devalues the human worth of those living with disability. They shriek and screech and bully and dissemble whenever anyone bluntly points this out, even as they mouth give-away platitudes about ‘quality of life’ and ‘dying with dignity’.
I spend every working day busting a gut for f**k-all pay to help improve the ‘quality of life’ and ‘dignity’ of people who faux ‘progressives’ like Leadbetter would probably find it far less bothersome to euthenise. Flush the crippled, broken, deformed and distressed clean down the loo, whoosh. Simply disappear them, so you and the society you are helping ‘compassionately’ reshape don’t ever have to confront awkward questions about our narcissistic, sociopathic values and self-serving life choices.
It doesn’t devalue the life of anyone with a disability. It might do if the euthanasia was compulsory but this will be voluntary. Your emotional driven value judgements will not be allowed to interfere with other people’s choices. Glad I voted Labour now
You mean it will be voluntary for now.
Doesn’t the “V” in “VAD” stand for “voluntary”?
I wonder if the WEF has a few secret committees who meet and decide on plans such as the spread of state euthanasia?
They then appoint the leaders of a new ‘test state’ (following Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands). For the UK, Starmer is tasked at finding a liberal flagbearer- perhaps someone with admired ‘victim status’ (this woman having lost her poor sister to a terror attack).
But the outcome is the same. The terminally ill, then extended to the mentally ill, then the poor, then to children and finally to disabled babies.
You are unbalanced
Yeah, or if not the WEF, its the shapeshifting lizards from planet (insert name – I can never remember), who are trying to reduce the head count.
Even if you agree with the idea of this bill can we very much at least agree it needs to be done properly and have adequate safeguards and protections and be rigorously reviewed lest it ends up like Canada where 1/20th of all deaths in the nation is at the hands of their own government.
And quite frankly I don’t trust this government or anyone else that’s been in or near power for the last decade to not bungle things considering they can’t even keep the heat on in the winter, and the consequences of making a pigs breakfast of a bill like this are far more dire. As such trying to squeeze this bill through without scrutiny and using underhanded legal shenanigans to avoided real debate is unconsciousable and clear proof that something is rotten with the whole thing.
…and trying to get anything at all that’s connected with this legislation dealt with secretly is an absolute No. A complete betrayal of commitments made, and a sign of bad faith.
The equivalent Australian laws have less “protections” that the proposed UK laws, and they are working fine.
If Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler attempted hide their murderous intent why complain about KL?
Dangerous territory. If this one goes wrong UK government will be sued from here to Kingdom come, and rightly so … Assisted Killing is not a good look. Meanwhile, “cover up” will be the order of the day.
Really? Those issues don’t seem to have arisen in Australia, where all States have had similar laws for a while.
In Canada MAID is the thin end of the wedge and is morphing (at its worst) into a state sponsored money saving bureaucracy of death. For example one woman diagnosed with terminal cancer was offered MAID rather than cancer treatment (much cheaper for the state). Luckily she obtained treatment in the US, was cured and thus avoided death. Also, somewhat unbelievably, young people with depression/suicidal thoughts are being offered MAID! what happened to the Hippocratic Oath?
How can it be said that she had “terminal cancer” when it was cured by treatment?
A ‘win’ would be more convincing after robust scrutiny by opponents and neutrals.
What was all that criticism of Trump and losers consent in the Unherd debate?
This has Starmer all over it. Are we sure it’s a private members bill?
“To all appearances, Kim Leadbeater is playing to win“. Good thing too. It is about time Britain had legislation like this. All indications are that the British people are in favor of it.
This British person is not in favour of it. It will be a slippery slope, enabling so-called carers the opportunity to turn the screws on the aged who just won’t do the decent thing and die.
Although British, I live in Australia now. All States of Australia have had similar laws for a while. There is no “slippery slope”.
From your spelling of “favor”, one wonders whether you are in a strong position to know what the British people think.
Well spotted.
I am British by birth, and were it up to me, I would put the “u” in. However, that gives me a red line under the word, which causes me to change the spelling. I guess my computer must be set to “American English”.