A group of Labour MPs have launched a scathing attack on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill in a letter to colleagues, calling it “irredeemably flawed and not fit to become law” and pointing to the emergence of “significant new risks” during the recently completed Committee Stage.
In a strongly worded letter to fellow Labour MPs at the close of the Bill’s Committee Stage, Labour MPs Dame Meg Hillier, Florence Eshalomi, Antonia Bance, Jess Asato, James Frith and Melanie Ward urged their fellow MPs to vote against the Bill “in its remaining stages”.
The MPs wrote “The promise made at Second Reading that it would be strengthened in Committee Stage has not been kept, and not only have vital safeguards been removed from the Bill, but significant new risks have also emerged”.
The MPs pointed out that the amended Bill fails to protect a number of groups, including children, people with anorexia, people with mental health conditions, those with learning difficulties or victims of domestic and financial abuse.
Labour MPs blast “flawed and dangerous bill”
The letter directly contradicts Kim Leadbeater’s claims at the close of Committee Stage that her amended Bill “is even safer, fairer, and more workable and…provides choice to eligible adults who want and need it at the end of their lives”.
In their extensive, three-page letter, the Labour MPs blasted the Bill’s “reckless and loose language”, which threatens “the very foundation of our NHS”. They explained why the Bill is “irredeemably flawed” by reference to eight key areas of concern: the removal of the High Court stage; the risk to children; the risk to people with anorexia; the risk to people who lack the capacity to decide; the fact that doctors can still suggest assisted suicide to patients; there is no impact assessment or assessment of the cost to the taxpayer; it is a change to the founding language and purpose of our NHS; and they also criticised the process “that did not enable good scrutiny or expert input”.
The Labour MPs wrote “Our efforts have not succeeded in improving the bill and we cannot recommend a vote in favour of it”.
“It is our hope that the bill will not progress in its current form, and that a better way can be found to take forward the vital conversation about choice at the end of life”.
“But a flawed and dangerous bill that places the most vulnerable people in society at unacceptable risk is no choice at all, and we urge MPs to vote against it”.
Posting on X, fellow Labour MP Andrew Pakes responded to the letter by saying “I share these concerns”.
“It’s got worse, not better, in committee”
Committee member Danny Kruger MP was equally scathing about the amended Bill at the conclusion of the Committee Stage, saying “This is not the Bill the public thought they were getting. It contradicts the NHS Act and the Hippocratic Oath. It’s got worse, not better, in committee”.
With Kim Leadbeater and Bill supporters rejecting over 300 amendments that sought to strengthen safeguards in the Bill and protect vulnerable groups, including people with Down’s syndrome, autism and learning difficulties, MPs are being urged to vote against the Bill.
Reflecting on the Committee Process, Dr Philip Murray, Assistant Professor in Law at Robinson College, Cambridge University, posted on X “If as an MP you’re able to look at the list of totally unanswered questions, the proceedings of the shoddy Bill committee, the serious concerns of experts, the watering down of safeguards, and still vote this through, you’ve lost the moral right to be a legislator”.
Specialists in disability, law, medicine, and other disciplines, in a letter to MPs, wrote “Kim Leadbeater’s bill is beset by issues that would translate into serious public harm, should it be passed into law. We would urge you to reflect on the issues above and vote down the bill at Third Reading”.
Major newspapers call for “vile assisted suicide Bill” to be scrapped
There have also been notable strongly worded calls from major newspapers The Times and The Daily Telegraph for the Bill to be scrapped. Following the conclusion of the Committee Stage, The Times summed up its position in an editorial that carried the headline “The dangerously flawed assisted dying legislation should be abandoned”.
Referring to the Bill’s process as a “dog’s breakfast”, the editorial said “the bill is not fit for purpose, its provisions a mess, and its journey through parliament an unconscionable waste of time”, ending with a call to “kill this bill”. The Telegraph’s headline was even stronger, saying “The vile assisted suicide Bill is on its last legs. Now let’s kill it off”, whilst The Spectator questioned whether the Bill would be able to continue with its headline “Has the Assisted Dying Bill been killed off?”.
These calls are the latest in a series of blows to the Leadbeater Bill. The Bill’s supporters were dismayed after the Committee accepted an amendment, on its final day of meeting, which could delay implementation of the Bill for up to 4 years, perhaps until after the next General Election. Lib Dem MP Tom Gordon, a supporter of the Bill, admitted the delay “risks pushing it beyond the next election, where it could be abandoned altogether”.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “The Labour MPs are correct to highlight in their letter the flawed and unbalanced nature of the Committee Stage and the dangers contained within the amended Bill”.
“It appears that many, including our national newspapers, are now waking up to what has been evident for some time: this Bill, if it became law, would be an utter disaster. It is full of holes, and the supposed safeguards are anything but robust. We still have little clarity about how assisted suicide would be implemented, many dozens of sensible safeguards to explicitly protect vulnerable groups have been rejected, and key questions have been left for ministers rather than Parliament to decide”.
“The Bill’s flagship safeguard, High Court oversight, has been scrapped and it is now evident that someone could access assisted suicide if they felt they were a burden on their loved ones, and even if they were not in pain”.
“These are just some of the many issues with this reckless Bill, and we urge MPs in the strongest possible terms to reject it at Third Reading”.
