Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on Kim Leadbeater’s moves to legalise assisted suicide
In November, the assisted suicide bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater MP passed its second reading.
Many MPs were persuaded to vote for the bill on the promise of detailed scrutiny at Committee stage.
Since then, we’ve seen several attempts by those cheerleading the bill to undermine this scrutiny.
Assisted suicide is wrong in principle – but the MPs that originally supported it need to be clear that this particular bill is reckless and that Kim Leadbeater’s promises have proved very shallow indeed.
Promise of detailed scrutiny at Committee
Debating the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Kim Leadbeater said: “We need to be clear: a vote to take this Bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate. It is a vote to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny in Committee.”
As MPs expressed legitimate concerns about the wording of the bill, she said: “I also reassure colleagues that the Bill Committee will meet over a number of weeks, meaning that there is ample time for full consideration of the details of the Bill, including amendments. The Committee will be representative of the views and make-up of the House.”
Last week, the bill Committee met for the first time. And the evidence shows that Leadbeater and the bill’s supporters have no real intent to listen to criticisms of the bill’s ‘safeguards’.
Here are seven ways that the bill’s supporters have sought to avoid giving it proper scrutiny:
1. Committee biased in favour of the bill
First, contrary to her explicit promise, the makeup of the Committee is much more strongly in favour of the bill than the vote at second reading in the House of Commons.
14 of the 23 members of the Committee voted in favour of the bill.
That’s 61%. The bill was carried at second reading by 330 to 275 votes, which is 55%.
Crucially though, only three of those who voted against the bill who are on the Committee were elected prior to 2024, and therefore have some parliamentary experience of bill committees. This compares with 7 of those who voted for the bill on the committee. This gulf in experience also affects how likely the various members are to influence the bill.
Leadbeater picked Danny Kruger to lead the opposition to the bill in the Committee. He is indeed a strong leading voice on the subject, but Leadbeater knows that he is on the right of the Conservative Party, not someone many Labour MPs will naturally want to be associated with. This affects the dynamics of Committee meetings.
2. Committee sat in private
Second, Leadbeater made a last-minute proposal for the Committee, that they should sit in private to discuss who to call to give oral evidence.
This was a crucial decision for the Committee. Why did she want to hide the discussion about who to hear from?
When the Committee meeting was back in public, Leadbeater was clearly riled by Kruger arguing against sitting in private, attempting to interrupt him three times with ‘Points of Order’ that were not actually Points of Order.
Danny Kruger pointed out:
“The fact is that this debate was due to be held in public—in fact people have travelled here in the expectation that they would be able to attend and observe our debate on the sittings motion—but last night, for reasons we do not fully understand, a decision was clearly made to table a motion that we sit in private.”
The reason why it was suggested last minute was never provided. Leadbeater claimed it was to respect the witnesses, but as Kruger noted, any lack of respect would be restrained by the Chair.
3. Committee witnesses declared late
Third, only at 10am on the morning of the first Committee meeting did Leadbeater submit the full list of witnesses, leaving out key witnesses Kruger and others would have expected.
As he said in committee,
“A list was informally communicated last week, which we also appreciated, although it was different from the list before us now. We did not have full advance notice of this list, which we only received at 10 o’clock this morning. It was not tabled in advance and was not on the amendment paper, so we had no opportunity to prepare amendments to the schedule of witnesses or to the timetable that we are discussing. We can table manuscript amendments—and that needs to happen—but the situation still procedurally disadvantages those of us who have concerns about the bill.”
4. Biased selection of legal witnesses
Fourth, the witnesses selected in the private hearing are clearly biased.
Of nine lawyers invited to give evidence, six actively support assisted suicide, and at least two of the others appear to be neutral. None of them is clearly opposed to the bill.
The committee has declined to hear from Sir James Munby, former head of the High Court’s family division who has described the bill as ‘defective’. Nor will it hear from Sir David Bodey, a retired High Court Judge in the family division who has questioned the practicalities of the bill.
If Leadbeater is genuinely determined that her bill should have real safeguards against abuse, including judicial oversight, you would think that she would be delighted to hear the perspective of these experienced judges. But she appears set on trying to avoid evidence that does not suit her agenda.
5. Biased selection of overseas witnesses
Fifth, all eight witnesses from overseas are in favour of legalising assisted suicide.
This is extraordinary and doesn’t even make a pretence of being neutral.
The Committee will not hear, for example, from Professor Theo Boer who initially supported Dutch legislation legalising assisted suicide, but changed his mind as he saw how it worked in practice. Professor Boer gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Select Committee to that effect in 2023.
The Committee also declined to hear evidence from anyone in Canada. This is because Canada is known to be one of the worst countries for provision of assisted suicide. Assisted suicide has become the fifth leading cause of death in Canada with over 15,000 cases in 2023 – extending its reach to include people who “endure intolerable suffering”, the mentally ill and even the economically disadvantaged.
Members of the Committee voted against hearing from an expert in Canada.
6. Voting against hearing psychiatric evidence
Sixth, Labour MP Naz Shah, one of the few experienced opposition MPs, proposed an amendment to hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the crucial questions of coercion and mental capacity.
Despite this being a key concern expressed by many MPs, the biased Committee voted it down by 14 votes to 8 with loud cries of “No!”
This prompted outrage on social media and prompted Kim Leadbeater to back down and U-turn, announcing that the Committee will hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists after all.
This unilateral announcement betrays the control that she has over the Committee. Formally, Leadbeater has to move an amendment to agree to this change of witnesses. In practice, she knows that those who so vocally opposed this before, will now agree to it under her say so.
7. Avoiding hearing from disability organisations
Seventh, the Committee initially refused to hear evidence from any physical disability organisation.
This is extraordinary since those with physical disabilities have been highly vocal about their concerns with the bill. Every major disability organisation opposes a change in the law on assisted suicide. The Committee did agree at the last minute to hear from a representative of Mencap, which helps people with learning disabilities. And after considerable pressure, Kim Leadbeater moved an amendment to also hear from Disability Rights UK.
The Committee is refusing to hear evidence from the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) even though this is the group likely to be most affected by the bill. Also excluded are the UK Deaf and Disabled Coalition, Hourglass, the UK’s only charity supporting older abuse victims, and Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse (Stada) which works to combat abuse.
Liz Carr’s excellent BBC documentary ‘Better off Dead?’ demonstrates how disabled people are often made to feel by people in society. In this case, one wonders if there are members of the Committee who think that disabled people are ‘better off dead’?
Will all this backfire?
It is interesting to note just how quickly Leadbeater U-turned on refusing to hear evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and later on hearing from Disability Rights UK.
She is clearly sensitive to appearing to be reasonable.
Yet the record paints a clear picture: she is stopping the bill receiving the proper scrutiny it deserves.
This should not be compared to typical Private Members’ Bills that address a smaller topic. This is a matter of life and death that has profound impacts on many different areas of our public life – particularly on elderly and disabled people. As such, it needs far more consideration than it is currently getting.
We know that there are many MPs who voted for the bill on second reading with the proviso that it would be amended and scrutinised at Committee as Leadbeater promised.
When MPs hear the evident bias of the Committee and the biased selection of witnesses they may be persuaded to change their minds. This is what we should pray for.
Leadbeater has massively undermined confidence in the Committee. Some MPs have tweeted about this already.
In such a crucial life and death issue, we pray that MPs will be very critical of the Committee when the bill comes back for third reading and that it will be voted down at that stage.
This starts with us – we need to make sure that our own MPs, whichever way they voted, understand that Leadbeater and the bill’s cheerleaders are actively avoiding giving it the scrutiny needed.
