I feel a bit like a broken record going on and on about the ludicrousness of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill Committee. Leadbeater has stacked the deck with her Committee — the membership, the witness lists, you name it — but just when I think I’m done drawing attention to what would be comical if it wasn’t so serious, further absurdity ensues.
For a moment last week, I was beginning to believe that perhaps Leadbeater and her allies might be beginning to behave in a constructive fashion when it came to their handling of amendments aimed at boosting safeguards in the Bill. However, the sessions on Tuesday 4 March very much laid any such generous thoughts to rest. Never had Leadbeater and her allies been so intransigent and, at times, intimidatory.
Understandably, the Down’s syndrome community has had significant concerns about Leadbeater’s Bill. People with Down’s syndrome are amongst the most vulnerable in our society and are put at risk by Leadbeater’s Bill. Indeed, a number of organisations and charities that spend their entire existence focused on engaging with and supporting those with Down’s syndrome were involved in supporting a key amendment to Leadbeater’s Bill that they felt would go some way to addressing some of their concerns. MP Damian Hinds tabled this amendment, and Danny Kruger led the push for it to be adopted at Committee. Those who wanted to ensure that people with Down’s syndrome were protected on the face of the Bill were sorely let down. Rather than ensuring any explicit commitment to safeguarding people with Down’s syndrome, MPs were offered vague assurances around non-binding guidance. Outrageously, this amendment was voted down by the Committee, 13-8.
Alleviating the concerns of vulnerable people does not appear to be a priority for the Committee
As if this wasn’t enough, leading cheerleader for the Bill Kit Malthouse then proceeded to issue an apparent threat against anyone raising concerns about the decisions made by Leadbeater’s Committee. Malthouse addressed his comments not only at MPs but even to those outside of Parliament. I suppose I had better be careful what I write in this piece — otherwise Malthouse will be after me too. I wonder whether he will go after the various Down’s syndrome organisations and charities that passionately fought for the Damian Hinds amendment to be adopted?
Unsurprisingly, these comments almost immediately attracted criticism since trying to gag Down’s syndrome organisations and charities for raising legitimate concerns about Leadbeater’s Bill is not a great look. I wonder whether, on reflection, Kit regrets his comments.
This isn’t the only vulnerable group that has been left disappointed and alarmed by the Committee’s proceedings. People with anorexia and diabetes have also been given cause for concern. On March 4, in the same session the Committee rejected a safeguarding amendment for people with Down’s syndrome, it also rejected an amendment focused on increasing safeguards for people with autism and learning difficulties.
This very reasonable amendment, tabled by Labour MP Daniel Francis, stipulated that if someone is autistic or has a learning disability, they must be given accessible information and sufficient time to consider the decision to opt for assisted suicide. It also states that a supporter or an independent advocate must be present with the person in question. As an MP, I had the pleasure of chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Special Educational Needs. Through this role and other work I carried out in my constituency, I was able to gain a thorough understanding of the needs of those with autism, and I fully understand the anxiety felt within the autism community in relation to this Bill. I expressed my own concerns before Second Reading.
We’ve also seen horror stories elsewhere relating to those with autism being euthanised. Sadly, alleviating the concerns of such people does not appear to be a priority for the Committee. Although there was some talk by some Committee members of concessions in this area, I have doubts about whether whatever ends up emerging will come close to providing the reassurance that Daniel Francis’ amendment would have done for this vulnerable community.
In addition to the Down’s syndrome and autism amendments being rejected, an amendment that would have ensured a patient rather than a doctor initiates a conversation about assisted suicide was also rejected. So too was a 28-day cooling-off period after receiving a terminal diagnosis. I have spoken to several people who have received such diagnoses who have reported that in the month or so afterwards they were at their most vulnerable and emotional. This cooling-off period amendment was not onerous and would not have prevented those who wanted to die doing so under the terms of the Bill and yet it too was rejected.
Far from the Committee providing reassurance to people from vulnerable groups, with each day that this flawed Bill snakes its way through the parliamentary process, the anxieties felt by those Parliament has a duty to protect are becoming more pronounced. In fact, within hours of the Down’s syndrome amendment being rejected, one of the most active Down’s syndrome organisations in the country stated they felt their voices were being ignored. Given that 84 MPs have previously cited concerns about the impact the Leadbeater Bill may have on people with disabilities, I wonder whether this might have a real bearing when it comes to Third Reading.
