by Lord Jackson, The Critic
It has looked more dangerous as the process has continued
In 2015, whilst serving as an MP, I voted against the last assisted dying Bill that came before the House of Commons, as I had serious concerns with the approach that was proposed for introducing assisted death.
With the Leadbeater Bill introduced this year, I had similar concerns but hoped that Committee Stage would strengthen the Bill and iron out some of its larger creases. Kim Leadbeater indicated her openness to listening to concerns expressed by MPs at Second Reading, and I hoped that a number of compromises would be made with opponents of the Bill to make her law safer.
The Bill committee meeting extended over two months and encompassed over 80 hours of debate and votes. As a busy Peer engaged in many different issues, I was unable to follow proceedings as closely as I would have liked, but I did pick up enough to be concerned. It was after Committee stage finished, though, when I had a chance to assess all the data and facts properly, that I became alarmed.
Some of the developments that took place at Committee attracted a lot of publicity, and most MPs will already be well aware, for example, of the High Court safeguard being removed from the Bill. Much of the other detail, however, may not be widely known.
Since the conclusion of the Committee, I’ve seen Ms Leadbeater and the proponents of the Bill claiming its safeguards have been strengthened and that everything is going swimmingly. Nothing to see here. However, when you scrape just a little beneath the surface, a very different picture emerges.
By my count, 393 amendments to the Bill were tabled by MPs who voted against the Bill at Second Reading. These account for more than half the number of amendments considered by the Committee. Of these amendments, the vast majority failed to receive the support of the Committee, by which I primarily mean that Kim Leadbeater and the Government chose not to support them. The pattern of voting and decisions on amendments at Committee went almost entirely along the voting lines at Second Reading, which is to say that, with a significant pro-Bill majority on the Committee, only amendments explicitly supported by Kim and her allies (and the Government) stood any chance of passing. The notable exception to this would be two amendments to give Wales a stay of execution from the provisions of the Bill, if you will pardon the phrase.
Problems with Kim Leadbeater’s Bill by Tim Dieppe, Christian Concern