Last Friday, MPs gathered in parliament to start the Report stage of the Terminally Ill (Adults) End of Life Bill. Hundreds of Christian Concern supporters turned up to rally in protest of the Bill.
Dozens of amendments proposed
More than 100 amendments have been tabled by MPs to the bill for the Report stage of its progress. Over 40 amendments have been proposed by Kim Leadbeater MP – the sponsor of the bill. This follows dozens of amendments being debated at Committee stage where many sensible safeguards were rejected and other key provisions, like requiring a High Court judge to sign off on each case, were dropped.
The fact that even now, Kim Leadbeater is proposing another 40 amendments serves to show just how flawed the process has been, how inadequate the bill is and the lack of adequate time for proper scrutiny there has been.
No time for proper debate
This lack of time was in evidence in the debate on Friday where dozens of amendments were set to be discussed. The speaker even threatened to impose an unprecedented formal time limit on speeches. Lack of time meant that several MPs who had tabled amendments never even got to speak. Jess Asato made this point:
“The shadow Minister says that we are debating those amendments today, but we have not actually been able to hear from all those who have tabled those amendments. Nine Members who have tabled amendments have not been called to speak, so how can we call this a debate when we have not even heard why they are proposing their amendments in the first place?”
Neil O’Brien complained:
“I am one of those people who is against the Bill, not in principle but for the reasons set out brilliantly by many articulate Labour Members. When my constituents ask what I think about this, I have no way of telling them; there is no way for me to get into the nuance of my position on it, because there has been no time to have a proper debate, and so many Members will now be unable to say a single thing about this totally transformative Bill.”
Conscientious objection
Kim Leadbeater proposed an amendment – new clause 10 – intended to strengthen conscientious objection to the Bill. She has had plenty of time before to consider conscientious objection, but decided to bring in a new amendment on the matter at this late stage. Leadbeater stated that this amendment would grant greater “choice” to doctors and other healthcare professionals. She particularly cited the provision in New Schedule 1 (NS1) which states that employees are “not to be subjected to any detriment” for refusing to take part in the assisted suicide process.
However, Carla Lockhart noted that the clause would not remove the duty to provide information. She quoted the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who stated that “For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved”.
Moreover, Labour MP Laurence Turner pointed out that NS1 would not protect agency workers. Polly Billington, another Labour MP, asked why Leadbeater had not ensured hospices would not lose government funding if they chose to opt out.
This amendment was supported by most MPs and is expected to be passed when Report stage continues.
No opt-out for hospices or care homes
Rebecca Paul – Conservative MP and opponent of the Bill – tabled amendment (a) to NC10, providing that employers should be able to prevent employees from participating in the assisted suicide process. This would enable hospices and care homes to formally opt out of providing assisted suicide. They could then advertise themselves as being safe facilities where assisted suicide will not be offered.
However, Kim Leadbeater argued that amendment (a) to NC10 would put patient safety at risk, since an employer preventing their workers from participating in the assisted suicide process could hinder the sharing of information. Quite shockingly, Kit Malthouse claimed that the amendment “prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying”.
This amendment was voted on at the end of the debate and was lost with 243 MPs supporting it, but 279 opposing. This means it is now clear that the bill will not allow conscientious opt-out for hospices or care homes. Christian hospices or care homes will not be able to object to facilitating assisted suicide. Other jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal do provide for conscientious objection from hospices or care homes. We hope that many hospice and care home organisations will make clear their opposition to this bill and that this lack of provision will give MPs another reason to oppose the bill.
Anorexia still not ruled out as a terminal illness
Naz Shah expressed her frustration at the Government’s sudden change of opinion from opposition to support of her amendment 14, which would prevented a patient qualifying as terminally ill because they voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. Under pressure, Kim Leadbeater stated in the debate that she was “happy to support this amendment today.”
Naz Shah noted this, but expressed exasperation at having no notice of this change of heart from Kim Leadbeater given that she had opposed a similar amendment in Committee. This created confusion about what was or was not accepted and prompted Shah to describe the entire process as “fundamentally flawed”, to cries of “Hear, hear”.
In the event, amendment 14 was not voted on and is not now part of the bill. It is unclear at this stage whether Leadbeater’s mention of support in the debate will prompt this amendment to be voted on another day.
Shah also spoke to her amendment 38, which would prevent those treatable conditions – like kidney disease for instance – qualifying as terminal because they stopped treatment. She called on MPs to support both amendments if they were “serious about protecting vulnerable people”.
Many other speeches were made raising concerns about the bill, including the fact that doctors can suggest assisted suicide to a patient who has not raised it, and the very serious risks of coercion.
Next steps
The debate concluded with a closure motion which passed by 288 votes to 239 meaning that debate on all the amendments in Group 1 was concluded even though many amendments had not been debated. Report stage will now continue on 13 June with debate on amendments in Group 2. It is likely that another closure motion will cut short that debate too. There will then be a series of votes on various amendments, but only Kim Leadbeater’s amendments are guaranteed a vote since she is sponsor of the bill.
It is most likely that there will not be time to conclude all the votes and then progress to Third reading on 13 June. We therefore expect Report stage to conclude on 20 June, and for the crucial Third reading to take place then when MPs will get their final chance to vote on the Bill.
Please do continue to pray and to lobby your MP to oppose this bill on its Third reading. Please also join us to rally outside Parliament on both 13 and 20 June.
