Assisted dying bill could be axed before MPs have chance to vote

While concerns have been raised over coercion and mission creep, Kim Leadbeater has described her bill as the most robust in the world

The assisted dying bill could be axed before it has a chance to be voted on, as a group of MPs have tabled an amendment that could stop it in its tracks.

MPs are scheduled to vote on Friday on Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill, which if passed would legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults.

But a cross-party group of MPs, comprising Conservative MP Ben Spencer, Lib Dem MP Munira Wilson, and Labour’s Anna Dixon, have co-sponsored a so-called “wrecking amendment”, which would scupper the bill if enough MPs supported it.

It comes after some MPs expressed fears that the legislation has been rushed.

MPs are set to vote on Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill on Friday (PA)

If the amendment were selected, it would be voted on during the second reading of the bill, but before a vote on the bill takes place. If it attracted majority support from MPs, it would stop the bill from progressing to a vote.

Ms Leadbeater, who sponsored the bill, told The Independent that the amendment in question is evidently intended to “prevent this vital issue being debated at all”.

While she noted that the selection of amendments is “entirely a matter for the speaker”, she added: “I believe parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not take this opportunity to address a reform that is long overdue and has overwhelming public support.

“As the leader of the house, Lucy Powell, has said, my private member’s bill will have at least as much time for debate and scrutiny as any other piece of legislation. I look forward to starting that process with a respectful and compassionate debate on Friday.”

The amendment, revealed by The Telegraph, reads: “This House declines to give a second reading to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because the House’s procedures for the consideration of private members’ bills do not allow for sufficient debate on and scrutiny of a bill on a matter of this importance.”

While it states that the House “recognises the importance of having a fully informed debate and vote on assisted dying”, it says this should come after an “independent review of and public consultation on the existing law and proposals for change”.

With days to go before the historic vote, the result is on a knife edge, with backers of the bill believing they have enough support, while opponents believe they may be able to block it.

It comes as a growing number of leading academic experts in the fields of health, end-of-life care and the legal system have signed an open letter opposing the assisted dying bill, with the number of signatories increasing to 102 as of Tuesday.

The letter expresses concern that the safeguards outlined by the bill are not strong enough and could open the door to coercion of the vulnerable to end their own lives.

The academics say Ms Leadbeater’s bill is “an inadequate parliamentary process for an issue of such ethical and legal complexity”.

But leading barristers, including former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill KC, have spoken in favour of the bill, saying it would offer better safeguards than the current system through a process involving two doctors and a judge.

Earlier this month, Dame Alison Saunders and Liberal Democrat peer Ken Macdonald, who have both served as director of public prosecutions, revealed their support for the landmark legislation.

Former education secretary Kit Malthouse, one of the bill’s more prominent advocates, told The Independent that it will “bring order, regulation, supervision and compassion“ to the regulatory landscape for those suffering from terminal illnesses, describing the current situation as a “Wild West”.

“It’s worth remembering that behind all of the arguments around the process are real human beings with real experiences. Over the last 10 years, I’ve sat with so many of those people and frankly wept with them.

“I’m not a man easily moved to tears, but I wept with them when I heard what they’ve lived through. And we’re making them do that every single day,” he said.

Mr Malthouse said “we can’t just stick our fingers in our ears and look away” as increasing numbers of people are “taking their own lives in horrible, violent ways on their own” in order to escape the suffering caused by terminal illnesses.

“If the bill fails, it won’t stop people with a terminal illness killing themselves,” he said. “They’re doing that already.”

Ms Leadbeater has described her bill as the most robust in the world, with “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of a sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge. It would also make coercion an offence with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.

The legislation, which covers England and Wales, states that only terminally ill adults with under six months left to live and a settled wish to die would be eligible.

Ms Leadbeater said opponents of plans to legalise assisted dying “mustn’t be hearing” the stories of the terminally ill.

She called for the debate to focus on “the problem we have to fix” rather than “who in the cabinet has fallen out with who else in the cabinet”.