Labour MPs criticise Committee’s handling of assisted suicide Bill

Four Labour MPs have written to their Party colleagues to share their concerns at how Kim Leadbeater’s dangerous assisted suicide proposals are being handled.

In an open letter, Antonia Bance, Meg Hillier, Jess Asato and James Frith said that “given the complexity and gravity of the issues involved, we believe there is a responsibility to balance all of the evidence presented so that members can make informed judgements when the Bill returns to the floor of the House”.

They believe supporters of the Bill are not being transparent and are failing to give an accurate picture of the evidence heard by the Committee.

Realised fears

They noted that, while the Committee heard from around 50 witnesses last week, none of these had any expertise in domestic abuse or coercive control against women or girls; none of those from jurisdictions with legal assisted suicide had concerns about it; and all of those with experience of a loved one’s death through assisted suicide were supportive of it.

The MPs wrote: “Many members, including members of the committee, feel that overall the list of witnesses did not in fact reflect a wide range of different views, but was weighted towards voices that were known to be supportive of the Bill.”

Bance and her colleagues then outlined some of the evidence against the Bill that has been ignored by supportive members, including testimony from Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty, who said predicting when someone has six months to live is “not an exact science”, and that there is a “spread of uncertainty”.

The letter’s authors highlighted that there is now an amendment to change the requirement from six months to twelve in cases of neurodegenerative diseases, “which realises the fears many colleagues have had about the scope of the Bill being expanded – before it is even halfway through its passage through Parliament”.

Anorexia

Supporters of the Bill have also failed to highlight that across multiple jurisdictions, 60 patients who received an ‘assisted death’ had anorexia. An eating disorder expert told the Committee that a person could become so physically unwell because of their condition that they would fall within the scope of the proposals.

Bance and her colleagues noted: “Other, more supportive witnesses did not deny this – and instead said the committee should not ‘fixate’ on this small number as it was a ‘distraction’.”

They also reported that multiple medical colleges raised concerns about the difficulties assessing “a person’s capacity to take a one-off substance to bring about death”. People who wish to become organ donors must go through an independent psychological assessment to ensure they are not being coerced into donating.

The MPs pointed out: “The Bill does not have this safeguard, which means the Bill would create a health system with fewer protections against being coerced to die than against being coerced to go through an organ donation process that people are intended to survive”.

Omitted evidence

The letter emphasised the importance of adequate scrutiny, and lamented that the Government’s Equality Impact Assessment will not be published until after the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny process has finished.

Evidence from former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption that the High Court process would not work and should come out of the Bill was omitted from supporters’ list of “key moments” from the evidence sessions, as was the testimony of a barrister who noted that someone refused assisted suicide may appeal the decision, but an appeal against a decision in favour is not permitted.

The MPs concluded: “We believe it is vital that all of us, not just those on the committee, understand the many details that are still causing concern to our colleagues, to medical and legal experts and above all to many of our constituents.

“We would urge you all to ensure you take the time to read and evaluate all of the evidence, and the discussions of key amendments that will take place as the committee progresses, to ensure that we legislate with the rigour the public would expect, on matters of surely unparalleled importance.”

‘Procedural defects’

The Shadow Leader of the House of Commons has also hit out at the way the Bill is being “rushed” through Parliament.

During Business Questions, Conservative MP Jesse Norman highlighted “a host of procedural defects” in the way it is being dealt with in the Commons, but that his concerns had been ignored.

Among his concerns were that the Bill “was published barely two weeks before the vote at Second Reading”, and that a document circulated by Kim Leadbeater prior to the vote “purporting to answer questions” in reality left a significant number of important questions “entirely untouched”.

‘Impede and inhibit scrutiny’

Like the authors of the letter to Labour MPs, he highlighted the testimonies of witnesses criticising the Bill, and said that “all this has been made much worse by the rushed and secretive way in which the Bill Committee itself has been handled.

“The membership is disproportionately weighted towards supporters of the Bill. The schedule has been highly congested, with back-to-back sittings that do not allow MPs to prepare. Some of the sessions have been held in private. Attempts have been made to prevent key institutions such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists from appearing in front of the Committee at all.

“The effect of all these measures is to impede and inhibit external and internal scrutiny.”

He added: “All these things are shocking attempts to undermine and short-circuit the proper scrutiny of the legislation.”