MPs are waking up to the dangers of Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill: Alexander Stafford
I wrote in this newspaper late last year about the concerns I had with Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill shortly after it had passed its Second Reading. I predicted in my piece that, despite passing its first hurdle in the House of Commons, it was still far from assured that the Bill would make it into law.
I said this because a number of MPs gave the Bill qualified support at Second Reading on the basis of holding significant concerns regarding the Bill. It seemed likely back then that enough of these MPs might change their mind later in the parliamentary process and so sink the Bill.
Interestingly, the same situation seems to be happening in Scotland, where over 20 MSPs voted for the equivalent Bill there at Stage 1 despite having significant reservations.
Nothing that has happened since I wrote my earlier piece has made me doubt this prediction. What I never would have predicted, however, was that the Bill would actually return to the main Commons Chamber weaker than when it left it last November. However, that is precisely what has happened despite Kim Leadbeater’s protestations.
The High Court safeguard, cited by Leadbeater and her supporters as key to ensuring the Bill’s safety, was rapidly jettisoned. Moreover, hundreds of amendments tabled by opponents of the Bill at Committee Stage to boost safeguards for vulnerable people were rejected. These included amendments aimed at closing the loophole in the proposed legislation that could lead to people with anorexia qualifying for an assisted death, as well as an amendment that would have provided additional protections for those with Down's syndrome.
Leadbeater’s Bill returned to the main Commons Chamber on 16 May amidst a far more acrimonious atmosphere than it had enjoyed at Second Reading. Several MPs rightly raised concerns about how constrained the day one Report Stage debate was. Over 90 MPs expressed a wish to speak during the debate, but fewer than 30 were successful in doing so. There was even criticism that the Bill’s sponsor (Leadbeater) disappeared midway through the debate for almost an hour.
Over the past few weeks, we have also witnessed a steady stream of MPs who voted for the Bill at Second Reading changing their minds and making it clear that they will not support it at the decisive Third Reading vote.
It will take more switchers than the ones who have gone public so far to wipe out the Bill’s majority of 55 at Second Reading (a total of 28 will need to switch from supporting to opposing), but the momentum is now against the Bill, and I would not be surprised if opponents of the Bill are joined by enough switchers to sink it. I imagine that a good number of undecided MPs are waiting until closer to Third Reading (expected to be on June 20) before making up their minds . Leadbeater and her allies, therefore, should not take too much encouragement from more switchers having not yet declared their hand publicly.
While enthusiasm towards the Bill among those who voted for it at Second Reading has waned, those who voted against it have generally become more entrenched in their opposition. It was illuminating watching Naz Shah and Sarah Olney on the Bill Committee - two MPs who voted against the Bill at Second Reading but were open to the idea of a law change should it be proven to be safe and workable. However, after being on the Bill Committee and perceiving more fully the realities of the Bill its dangers, these MPs have become two of the Bill’s staunchest critics.
Research published last week by the Labour List website is consistent with the suspicion that support for the Bill is declining. It showed that out of the 231 Labour MPs who voted for the Bill at Second Reading, only 28 had actually confirmed they would definitely vote for it again at Third Reading. By comparison, of 150 Labour MPs who voted against the Bill at Second Reading, 54 have declared they will vote against the Bill once more at its decisive vote. Or, to put it differently, 36 per cent of those who voted against the Bill at Second Reading have confirmed they are definitely still opposed to it, whereas just 12 per cent of those who voted in favour at Second Reading have announced they will vote for it at its final Commons stage.
If I were Kim Leadbeater, I would be deeply concerned about this trajectory. The longer this process has gone on, the more MPs seem to have grasped the deficiencies of her Bill and the dangers it poses to vulnerable people. Indeed, there are good reasons why no major disability advocacy groups in the UK – including Disability Rights UK, Scope and Not Dead Yet – have publicly backed the Bill.
Ultimately, the decisive Third Reading vote taking place in June will not be a vote on a vague principle but on the realities of a flawed Bill - and more MPs seem to be waking up to this.
Alexander Stafford is the former Conservative MP for Rother Valley.