As you will recall, MPs voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at its Second Reading, following which the Bill was scrutinised by a Public Bill Committee. Kim Leadbetter MP, the Bill’s sponsor, chose the 23 members of the Public Bill Committee that have gone through the Bill line by line.
The Public Bill Committee has now completed its work and has reported the Bill with amendments to the House. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is now due to have its report stage and Third Reading in May. Amendments can be made to the Bill at Report Stage and the amendments to be considered are selected by the Speaker.
At this stage, all MPs—not just the ones on the Committee—can suggest changes. These changes will be debated, and MPs will vote on whether to accept them. After the Report Stage, MPs will have a final chance to debate and vote on the whole Bill, including any changes that have been made – this is called the Third Reading.
If MPs vote against the Bill at the Third Reading, this will stop the Bill altogether. If they vote to pass the Bill, a new amendment put forward by Kim Leadbeater, under pressure from the Labour Government, changes the maximum implementation period from two years to four years.
In my view, the Public Bill Committee has illustrated why this legislation is, in reality, so unworkable. Not only has the Bill sponsor been forced to delay the implementation of assisted dying powers until at least 2029, this process has also removed a key safeguard in terms of the High Court judge and grant the Senedd (or Welsh Parliament) the powers to block assisted dying in Wales. Crucially, the Bill still contains no detail on how services will be delivered, regulated or held to account.
Many constituents have written to me to voice their profound concern that the safeguard of the High Court judge has been removed from the Bill. This is a concern I also share. In addition to two doctors, the original Bill said that a High Court judge would have to check each person’s eligibility for an assisted death before granting that right. This included whether they were of sound mind and had not been coerced into ending their life. It was a key pillar of the Bill’s ‘thorough and robust’ safeguards.
However, the Bill has now been amended to replace the oversight of a judge with that of a panel of experts - made up of a psychiatrist, a lawyer and a social worker. The decision to remove the involvement of the High Court judge comes as no surprise to me. Given the backlogs in the courts, this was never a serious proposal but convinced many wavering MPs to support the Bill at Second Reading.
Incredibly, it is reported Ms Leadbetter failed to consult the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) before giving them a central role in the panels. The president of the RCP would have told the Bill Committee, it is understood, that there are many challenges with this proposal, including workforce shortages.
While it is convention that the make-up of these committees reflects the view of the House of Commons at a bill’s Second Reading, I also share real concerns the Committee was deeply unbalanced in favour of those who support changing the law – with 14 supporters of the Bill and 9 opponents - and that this has clearly contributed to the removal of safeguards in the Bill and the rejection of many proposed safeguards.
As is usual, members of the committee have laid various amendments to the Bill in their bid to strengthen and improve this potential legislation. This includes 327 amendments which sought to provide additional safeguards, such as legally excluding those with eating disorders and Down’s syndrome. It is extremely disappointing these were given short shrift and were, staggeringly, voted down with little justification given by the Bill’s supporters.
Many are also asking if a Private Members Bill is the best way to consider a social issue of such importance and to create such a wide-ranging law? Does it have enough parliamentary time or attention? Here, I should stress again that amendments can be laid when the Bill returns for Report Stage on the floor of the House. This is when the Bill will be debated and voted on again by all MPs in the House of Commons main chamber.
I hope as many MPs as possible will be there to carefully scrutinise this re-drafted Bill and its huge societal implications ahead of that debate. I certainly will be there to play my part.
