(London, England) โ Just when we thought we had seen the death of the assisted suicide bill, Lauren Edwards, MP for Rochester and Strood, finished second in theย private membersโ bill ballotย and on 17 June, decided to bring it back.
The bill that has been brought back is identical to the one proposed by Kim Leadbeater MP in the last Parliamentary session. So why has Lauren Edwards decided to bring it back in the same form?
Well, one reason may be that it keeps alive the possibility of using the Parliament Act.
What is the Parliament Act and why does it matter?
This act, passed over 100 years ago, allows a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons twice in two consecutive sessions, but been rejected by the House of Lords, to bypass the House of Lords on the second occasion and become law with little to no scrutiny.
This act has only been used seven times and has never been used for a private membersโ bill, setting a new precedent if the worst was to happen.
Therefore, the vote on 11 September risks allowing this poorly drafted bill to become law without any scrutiny from the upper chamber.
The Failings With Leadbeaterโs Bill
It was repeatedly stated during debates on the bill brought forward by Kim Leadbeater MP that the bill contains a number of safeguards and protections for the most vulnerable. However, rather than the bill being strengthened, it was in fact weakened, with the flagship safeguard of sign off by a High Court judge replaced by a โvoluntary expert panel.โ
Kim Leadbeaterโs bill was rightly scrutinised by the House of Lords, because as many agreed, it was poorly drafted legislation, being introduced at the wrong time.
Sir David Haslam, former President and Chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said that this legislation has โa legion of unintended consequencesโฆ such legislation is inherently unstable.โ
The House of Lords, quite simply, did its job โ it exposed the flaws of a piece of legislation that will take peopleโs lives, and now those who wish to propose that same flawed piece of legislation may wish to bypass it altogether.
Furthermore, bodies such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that the bill left โโฆtoo many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, the College has concluded that it cannot support the Bill in its current form.โ Across the board, this flawed bill was rightly ripped apart, and yet, despite all this and much more criticism, Edwards thinks it is still good enough to bring back in the same form.
The need for better care
Following on from the above, I welcomed the recent comments by the Prime Minister stating that any debate on assisted suicide should at the very least be paused while the need for better palliative care is addressed. Absolutely.
As explained by so many bodies and groups, our palliative care system needs urgent and major investment and improvement. Former Chief Executive of the NHS, Simon Stevens stated that โโฆto introduce assisted dying while palliative care is underfunded and inequitably delivered, as is currently the case, brings evident and substantial risk.โ
Dignity should matter in caring for our most vulnerable first
Time and time again the debates and scrutiny of the House of Lords exposed deeper flaws with this bill. It was very interesting to see a former clerk of the House of Commons saying that โa lack of experience and knowledge among MPs means they are failing to scrutinise new laws, leaving it up to peers to provide โreal democratic accountability.โ
One thing that we all saw during the Leadbeater bill debates, was that the Lords, many with backgrounds in health and care, rightly pulled apart this bill and its many shortcomings. Bypassing this for a second time means we will miss out on real, constructive scrutiny on, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
Legislation that is afraid of scrutiny
The Parliament Act offers the proposers of this terrible law an opportunity to bypass the intense scrutiny it deserves. The entire existence of Dignity in Dying hinges on this bill, and a brazen approach to use this act allows them to get away with a poor bill becoming law.
And do any of us really think the fight will end there? Nearly everywhere this type of law has been enacted, the campaign begins for its expansion soon after. If this bill is passed, campaigners who once claimed it had strong safeguards will immediately work to undermine them.
We must never forget this bill would lead to real consequences for real people. Life is valuable; if those backing this law really believe that, they must start acknowledging that this bill is simply not good enough.
Thatโs why urging MPs to vote no at second reading is vital.
We at Christian Concern have put together our guide on contacting your MP. We will also be meeting once a week on livestreams to pray as we approach this significant day.
It must be made clear to MPs that a vote for this bill at second reading risks being a vote to use the Parliament Act.
Thatโs why itโs so important for us to highlight that there is no way back after this.
We can do it. We must do it.
