A Labour MP who had originally been inclined to vote for of Kim Leadbeater assisted dying legislation has claimed that the bill now has weaker safeguards than when MPs voted on it in November.
Naz Shah spoke to The Independent in the wake of the laborious and at times tetchy committee stage of the controversial bill being completed in parliament last Wednesday.
The Bradford West MP, who served on the committee scrutinising the bill, had hoped that safeguards on the bill could be strengthened to make it workable but now claims the legislation is “fundamentally flawed”.
It comes as data shows that 393 amendments were put forward by MPs who opposed the bill at second reading. Of these, 330 were rejected by the committee, 31 withdrawn before going to a vote and another 32 accepted.
Ms Leadbeater, the bill’s sponsor who gave a detailed interview to The Independent, wrote to MPs last week pointing out the changes and number of amendments accepted from both sides of the debate. In her email, she pointed out that 32 amendments from MPs were accepted and she hailed her new Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission chaired by a judge or retired judge for “strengthening” the process.
She noted that a survey taken before the vote in November saw 79 per cent of the public in favour of assisted dying.
She said: “I hope that whatever our views on the Bill itself, we share the commitment to ensuring that if it does become law, it should contain the best protections and safeguards, and this amendment helps achieve that.”
But Ms Shah has said she is “very disappointed” and “disheartened” with the direction taken after hopes they could ensure the safeguards were robust.
She revealed: “Kim [Leadbeater] is a friend and when she first told me about the bill I was inclined to vote for it. But the more I looked at the details, the more concerns I had.”
Top among these were concerns over the way people who suffer from domestic abuse and have disabilities could potentially be coerced into ending their lives early. As someone who had suffered previously from domestic abuse in a forced marriage, these issues were important to her.
Ms Shah also made headlines during the process when she was forced to leave a session because her hearing aid batteries had run flat. An attempt to push through amendments had seen the session extended despite pleas from Ms Shah that she could not take part.
She ended up voting against the bill at second reading but went into the committee stage with a view of “wanting to make it work”.
She said: “I went into it open minded. If we could get the safeguards right then I would be happy to support it.”
But as MPs prepare for the showdown on the final stages on 25 April, Ms Shah said she feels “disheartened” about it.
She said: “I feel a bit disheartened, because I feel like I’ve put a lot of work into this, because I went in to try and make this bill better, and actually, I’ve come out, and the bill is now weaker than it was when we first went in.”
In particular she highlights Ms Leadbeater’s amendment to remove the safeguard of having a High Court judge rule on whether a request for assisted death should go ahead. This was replaced by an expert panel or Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission.
“It’s fundamentally changed everything, generally is like the court, there’s no judicial oversight. The idea that it’s a judge led now is just, it’s a story for the birds, really, because it’s not judge led.
“You’ve got a judge who’s going to be a commissioner, and there’s no oversight on that commissioner now, because you’ve taken the commissioner, you’ve taken out the oversight from the actual chief medical officers. It has actually weakened the bill.”
She had also backed attempts to toughen up the bill by ensuring eating disorders such as anorexia could not be given as reasons for assisted dying.
“I talked about a lot with the anorexia stuff, and that’s weakened. The amendment that [Kim Leadbeater] put in, in the capacity bit, that’s actually weakened the bill, not strengthened the bill.
“Then there’s the issue that children are now exposed, that doctors can have this [assisted death] conversation with children. You know, there’s fundamental flaws in the bill, and I just feel disheartened that I’ve gone in trying to help fix it and actually come out, not from my fault, but, you know, with it weakened.”
Opponents of the bill have claimed that 23 of the 32 of their amendments accepted were “tidying up measures” and not significant while just seven were meaningful.
Ms Shah said: “I mean there were no there’s no big fundamental ones.”
Source: independent.co.uk
