Assisted dying: Why Scottish MPs are split on 'rushed' Bill, and similar legislation in Holyrood

The final Westminster vote on the assisted dying legislation is later this year - and the Bill’s passing remains up in the air

In Westminster this week, there was one issue that appeared to trump all others - assisted dying.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced by backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and proposes giving terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life.

The legislation’s passage would represent a seismic moment for the United Kingdom, seeing it join countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and New Zealand in legalising assisted dying.

People take part in a demonstration at Old Palace Yard in Westminster, London, to oppose the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Picture: Yui Mok/PA Wire

At the same time, a separate Bill is under discussion in Scotland. Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur drafted the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill and, if passed, eligible applicants would have to be resident in Scotland for at least 12 months, be registered with a GP in Scotland, be terminally ill, and have the mental capacity to make the request.

That legislation is now being considered by the health committee, which is expected to complete the first stage of a review on May 23, ahead of an initial vote by MSPs. However, last year Health Secretary Neil Gray claimed the proposed legislation went beyond the limits of Holyrood's powers, with issues relating to lethal drugs a matter for Westminster.

Mr McArthur hopes the administrations can find a solution if MSPs back his Bill, but it places even more scrutiny on what happens in Westminster.

In the Commons, there are splits everywhere. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was among those to vote in favour, as was Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

However, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, foreign secretary David Lammy, health secretary Wes Streeting and justice secretary Shabana Mahmood all voted against.

UK Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner. Picture by Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

The Tories are also starkly divided, with party leader Kemi Badenoch opposing the Bill, while former prime minister PM Rishi Sunak and his former deputy Oliver Dowden voted in support of assisted dying.

Expected to return to the Commons later this year, the debate in Westminster is not just over the ethics of the Bill, whether it’s right or wrong or even how the law would work. It’s also over how it’s debated.

On Wednesday evening, Commons business finished earlier than expected, leaving plenty of debate time unused. The Scotsman understands this enraged many MPs who opposed the Bill, not that they would have been allowed to use that time to discuss it. That is because this legislation is being considered predominantly by a Public Bill Committee, not the Commons.

While some debate will happen in Parliament, the bulk of the discussion is by a group of 23 MPs selected to be representative of the opinions of MPs. The committee features nine MPs who were opponents of the Bill, including its most high-profile Conservative opponent Danny Kruger, and 11 MPs who were in favour. In addition, and in a highly unusual move, there are also two ministers, health minister Stephen Kinnock and the justice minister Sarah Sackman.

The nature of this debate has left many MPs telling The Scotsman they feel excluded, but also concerned that not enough parliamentary time is being given.

Speaking to Scottish MPs, there was a clear split on the issue and one that did not just follow party lines.

Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine, a co-signature of the Bill, told The Scotsman not only did she support the legislation, but she would have brought it herself if Ms Leadbeater hadn’t.

Edinburgh West MP Christine Jardine (Lib Dems) will raise the issue of travellers in Parliament on Wednesday, September 11. | Submitted

Speaking hours after High Court sign-off in England and Wales was scrapped from the plans, with sign-off instead being performed by an expert panel of three, including a senior lawyer such as a King’s counsel or retired judge. Ms Jardine insisted the change showed supporters of the Bill were listening.

She said: “My immediate thought is this is exactly what the committee is supposed to do, hear the evidence and make any amendments they need to make. It shows the committee and Kim has listened.

“There were a few people saying they were uncomfortable with just one judge. I think actually this strengthens the safeguards in the Bill. Instead of having one judge, where you have to wait for a court date, you have a specialist panel of three people.

“They’ll be looking for things like the person’s free will. Not only does it not stop me voting yes, it will strengthen my commitment to the Bill.”

A long-time supporter of assisted dying, Ms Jardine insisted there were safeguards in place and the Bill should pass.

She said: “It’s not because I think it’s what I would want, or because a loved one has said they wanted it, but because I don’t think I have the right to prevent others from having that choice.

“I think it’s important for people who are facing a terminal diagnosis, and l know palliative care is wonderful at times, I have familial experience of that, but it doesn’t work for everyone. We do need to improve palliative care as well, but people need to have the choice if they are facing what could be a very difficult and painful death. I don’t know what I would do, but I do not think any of us have the right to dictate to people.

“We do need very strong safeguards and I think this Bill will have that. I understand people have religious objections and they have the right to say no, but other people have the right to say ‘yes, that is what I want’.”

However, not everyone was convinced by the removal of a judge, with some MPs saying it removed an important safety measure, as well as highlighting just how difficult it will be on an administrative level.

One Scottish MP, speaking anonymously, claimed the Bill was no longer in the form it was initially presented. They said: “MPs didn't vote for an idea. There are a growing number of us who believe this is the wrong format to take this generation-definition legislation forward.

“It’s rushed. I also think it’s becoming increasingly clear the committee is not balanced, and the speakers and experts are not particularly balanced. One side is wrongly thinking this is a unique chance to push it through and that's the wrong pretence to do so.

“It will soon come up against some serious pragmatic issues. It’s so labour intensive and the money will have to come from elsewhere. We need specialists, who are already in short supply, and a specialist facility. We should not be medicalising the dying process, it’s not workable.”

Another MP voting against is Scottish Labour’s Frank McNally, the representative for Coatbridge and Bellshill, who cited concerns about safeguards.

The Scottish Labour MP said: “I have major concerns around the legislation as it has been presented. I have a long-standing opposition to this. I've previously scrutinised the Bills coming through the Scottish Parliament, and I have major concerns around the implications for vulnerable people and for safeguarding.

“One of the real challenges I see is there are no safeguards that could be put in place to alleviate the concerns. People could feel a level of coercion, people could feel under pressure to engage in that assisted dying process. I don’t think there are safeguards that can be put in place to alleviate that.”

Scottish Labour MP Graeme Downie, who previously worked in a professional capacity helping with Margo McDonald’s assisted suicide Bill, argued the changes were helpful and could bring MPs over.

He said: “I will obviously look at amendments, but it is something we should be moving towards in Scotland and England and Wales. The Bill is obviously going through its rule and proper scrutiny in England, which is absolutely correct. I think Kim has done a fantastic job of addressing the concerns raised at the second reading.

“I think there is a need for this provision to be brought into force, presuming it can be done with the proper safeguards. At the same time, we need to make sure we are investing properly in palliative care.

“I do not see this as an either/or. We must strengthen palliative care and bring this provision forward for the very small number of people each year who would like to make this choice. The status quo is not working, the current system does not work. We do not know what decisions are being taken behind closed doors. By putting in this kind of formal process, it shines a light on that and will improve patient safety.”

Voting against is Scottish Labour colleague Richard Baker, who opposed similar legislation while an MSP in Holyrood. He raised concerns over both safety concerns and how the Bill was being “rushed”.

The Glenrothes and Mid Fife MP said: “I was in Hollyrood and voted on two separate occasions on legislation and in neither instance was I convinced that there were safeguards in place, particularly around protecting people who might have a vulnerability in terms of their capacity and their ability to take part in the process.

“I look to disability groups, and I worked in the disability sector for a long time, and they are really worried about the impact of this on disabled people. There’s concerns also about those people who have a self-pressure to state their desire to have their life ended, because they are conscious of the fact they do rely on a lot of care and a lot of family members. They might take a decision based on pressure that’s self-applied.

“Beyond that, I also have huge concerns about the way the Bill has been taken forward. I think it's not appropriate for a Bill of this complexity that will be such a massive change in our laws. I think it’s been extremely rushed.”

Regardless of views, it is a highly complicated issue. While still expected to pass both parliaments, there are MPs who could switch sides come the final vote. Even medical professionals are torn, with the Royal College of Nursing issuing a neutral stance since 2009 on whether the law on assisted dying should be changed.

MPs are wavering, and it remains to be seen if this prevents the Bill passing its final Westminster vote on April 25.