Throughout my time in parliament, first in the House of Commons, and now in the House of Lords, assisted suicide has been a subject of serious and sustained debate. My views are well known, and my basis for them is based on principles and practicalities.
First, legalising assisted suicide undermines the inherent dignity and worth of every human life, regardless of capacity or perceived utility. Secondly, and irrespective of my personal views on the principle, there is simply no means by which to implement a “safe” regime, with safeguards set out in legislative proposals that, while well-intentioned, often reflect aspirational safeguards rather than ones grounded in the complexities and pressures of real-world practice.
I was saddened by the recent decision made by MPs to pass Kim Leadbeater’s bill. Bearing in mind the strength of the opposition outside the commons from experts as to the workability of the legislation, particularly from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and disability organisations, I was disappointed that — on a matter of life and death, affecting many vulnerable people — a more cautious and considered approach was not taken. Instead, of MPs applying the precautionary principle and rejecting the bill, the House of Lords is now being asked to pick up the bill and address its failings.
Having said this, the fall in support for the bill between second and third reading was remarkable. I cannot think of another example in the past 160 years where a private members’ bill has seen such a large proportional collapse in support between second and third reading. The reduced majority — from 55 to 23 — is unusual and indicative of the challenges this flawed bill has experienced as it has been shepherded through the parliamentary process.
The Government’s 10 Year Health Plan – MDU response
BASC welcomes sensible delay to muirburn licensing rollout
Almost as soon as the bill passed its third reading in the commons, questions arose concerning the role the House of Lords should now play. Some cheerleaders of Kim Leadbeater’s bill — which will be taken forward in the Lords by Lord Falconer of Thoroton — have argued that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Lords to vote down or even significantly amend the bill. Others have made the case that the Lords is within its rights to do what is necessary to make the bill safer for vulnerable people and, if necessary, to reject it entirely.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
As has been pointed out elsewhere, assisted suicide is not an issue that was in any party’s manifesto at the last election, and the bill is not a government bill covered by the Salisbury-Addison convention. In contrast, writing in The Times, Lord Falconer argued that it would not be appropriate for peers to vote down the bill. I respect Lord Falconer, and we have been on the same side of important debates over the years, but on this occasion, his track record of voting against government bills in the Lords that were covered by the Salisbury convention raises questions about the consistency of that position, given his own voting record.
The Leadbeater bill arrives in the Lords plagued by numerous continuing concerns and unanswered questions. Its narrow victory in the commons — including the failure to secure an absolute majority — will not have gone unnoticed. Peers must not feel cajoled or rushed by campaigners to give uncritical assent to a bill that, in its current form, would inevitably put some of the most vulnerable people in our society at risk.
It is very telling that some of the most vocal critics of the bill in the Lords so far have been peers who are either disabled themselves or have close relatives who are disabled or have significant learning disabilities or life-limiting conditions. Baroness Grey-Thompson and Baroness Campbell, have made clear their determination to advocate for people with disabilities who are put most at risk by this bill, as has Lord Shinkwin. This is not a matter of political manoeuvring, but a reflection of deep-seated concerns of many vulnerable and disabled people, and the determination of peers to be a voice for those whose voices too often go unheard on this subject — including on this bill.
I have the privilege of working closely with and supporting people with Down’s syndrome and their families, and serve as a member of the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on Down’s syndrome. I was very struck by a statement that actor Tommy Jessop released outlining many of the concerns that people within the Down’s syndrome community share about assisted suicide and Kim Leadbeater’s bill in particular. My colleague, Baroness Monckton, who has a 30-year-old daughter with Down’s syndrome, has also spoken with great conviction about the risk the bill poses to people with Down’s syndrome and learning disabilities.
Such risks have been repeatedly dismissed by Ms Leadbeater and pro-bill MPs. My friend and the co-chair of the APPG on Down’s syndrome, Damien Hinds MP, sought to amend the bill at both committee and report stages to address some of these concerns. His very reasonable amendments were disappointingly rejected at committee stage, and not selected for decision at report stage. As a consequence, the bill continues to present a significant threat to people living with Down’s syndrome and learning disabilities.
Polling commissioned by the Down Syndrome Research Foundation, and published shortly before third reading, demonstrated that this is an issue of genuine concern for the public. Overall, 75% of those polled said they were concerned that if assisted suicide were to become legal, it would be difficult to establish whether a person with a learning disability, such as Down’s syndrome, was expressing voluntary informed consent if they applied for an assisted suicide.
Separate polling by the disability organisation Not Dead Yet UK, also highlighted the scale of public unease about what Kim Leadbeater’s bill might mean for disabled people. For example, 63% of respondents agreed that some disabled people may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if they felt they were a burden on family, friends or society (only 16% disagreed). Moreover, 57% of the public agreed that disabled people who struggle to access the support they need, in light of the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may become more likely to seek an assisted death instead (only 17% disagreed).
The Leadbeater bill has its second reading in the House of Lords on 12 September and will subsequently be scrutinised in depth by Peers during committee stage. The Lords has a duty to assist the commons in producing good legislation — a task which I anticipate will be particularly important and difficult given the stakes and state of this bill at present.
The Lords’ duty to scrutinise such bills means it must not simply rubber-stamp legislation it receives. Whenever this issue arises, as it has done on countless occasions in my time as a parliamentarian, I am reminded of the words of Lord Walton of Detchant, who chaired the medical ethics select committee 1993/94 which examined this issue in detail. In presenting his report to the House, Lord Walton noted that the inquiry believed the arguments in favour of legalisation of assisted suicide were “insufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition of intentional killing which is the cornerstone of the law and social relationships”. I have seen nothing to date in the passage of this bill to convince me that the situation now is any different.
A direct outworking of our duty as peers to ensure the production of good legislation is sometimes to urge the commons to stop, consider, and think again. As a member of the Lords, I will engage in good faith with this bill and endeavour to improve it. However, there is currently no settled parliamentary view on its merits — indeed, the direction of travel is towards increased opposition to the bill rather than support for it — and experts from key relevant fields have warned against it. Far from enriching our society, the bill risks diminishing it, offering a perceived freedom to a few, while endangering the voiceless and vulnerable, some of whom may ultimately pay the highest price.
As members of the Lords, we take our responsibility seriously. We must and will do what is necessary to safeguard those who are most vulnerable in our midst.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Discussion about this post