The assisted dying bill is flawed both in substance and process
4 min read
Many MPs voted for the Assisted Suicide Bill expecting that it would be improved and strengthened. As we prepare for its crucial Third Reading, that process has not happened.
The Assisted Suicide Bill is now out of Committee and is heading towards the conclusion of its passage through the Commons. However, I am even more troubled now than I was at Second Reading.
As a new MP, I was excited to get to grips with parliamentary procedure and the process of analysing legislation. Having worked as a lawyer, I looked forward to using my legal expertise and training to scrutinise bills. I even volunteered to sit on this Committee, but was unfortunately not selected.
So far, I have sat on two other Bill Committees (Tobacco and Vapes and then Border Security, Asylum and Immigration) and enjoyed the process. These Committees were allowed the appropriate time for debate and in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, the votes were not whipped on our side and so we could really debate the clauses proposed.
By contrast, I followed the Assisted Suicide Bill as it went through Committee with increasing concern as each day passed.
As has been widely reported, 393 amendments were put forward by MPs who voted against the Bill in November, including amendments from me. Of these, 330 were rejected by the Committee, 31 were withdrawn before going to a vote, and only 32 were accepted.
The 393 amendments were not ‘wrecking amendments’ designed to defeat the Bill – they were quite the opposite. The amendments proposed were on a range of topics, including protecting vulnerable people from coercive control.
My amendments were to protect diabetics (like me) and those with anorexia from qualifying for an assisted death under the definition of terminal illness. One of these amendments to Clause 2(3) would mean that a terminal illness should not apply to those with a disability or mental health illness only. This amendment would have made the bill stronger – Kim Leadbeater agreed with me, confirmed her lawyers did too, but yet would not make the change. I still cannot understand why.
After all that rushing, the next stage of the Bill has now been delayed. The Bill’s sponsors claim this is to allow for more time for scrutiny of changes, but in reality, the Bill is simply not ready.
As the Legislative Affairs expert, Nikki da Costa has pointed out, there are so many differences between a Government Bill and a Private Member’s Bill, and these differences have proved costly when it has come to scrutinising this Bill. On a matter this serious, it has simply not been a sufficiently watertight process.
It is staggering that there is still no sign of an impact assessment, even though MPs are being asked to potentially vote on this Bill for the final time in a few weeks. The absence of an official assessment of the implications of legalising assisted suicide is a dereliction of duty to our constituents who have elected us to scrutinise legislation.
At every twist and turn, it strikes me that more questions surrounding this Bill have been exposed, yet left unanswered. We are playing fast and loose with people’s lives.
At the time, many MPs wanted to continue the passage of the Bill beyond Second Reading expecting that changes would be made, and the Bill would come out stronger from Committee stage.
Colleagues from every party must consider anew whether they are happy with how the process has gone and what they should do at Third Reading. Do they believe – beyond any doubt – this bill is robust and strong enough when dealing with matters of life and death? Is it in better shape now than a few weeks ago? I think not.
In a democracy, the integrity of our legislative process is not a sideshow but crucial to the end result of passing good and workable laws. When it comes to a matter as profound as assisted suicide, we cannot afford to cut corners, rush scrutiny or leave critical questions unanswered.
The stakes could not be higher, and yet so far, Parliament has been unable to give this legislation the measured, thoughtful consideration it demands. I am clear that this Bill, in its current form, is deeply flawed – both in substance and in process.
At Third Reading, MPs will not be voting on a principle – they will be voting on a Bill that will become a law that some of our constituents will use to end their lives. Currently, that law will be riddled with unanswered concerns, rejected safeguards and an unsettling lack of scrutiny.
Whatever one’s view on the principle of assisted suicide, bad law serves no one.
Sarah Bool is the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire.
