Nikki da Costa was Director of Legislative Affairs to two Conservative Prime Ministers, Theresa May and Boris Johnson
On Tuesday, the Committee charged with the detailed scrutiny of the Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide bill voted to exclude the Royal College of Psychiatrists from giving evidence.
Despite coercion, mental state, and the role of psychiatrists being a key area of concern for many, Bill sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, led 14 MPs, including the two Government ministers, to oppose hearing from psychiatrists. Just 8 said they should be heard.
It was the second decision the Committee took that day. The first was to back the sponsor’s last-minute decision that the Committee should sit in private to discuss the list of who she had chosen to give oral evidence. A final list was only circulated to members at 10am that morning.
In just two hours we saw the extent of the sponsor’s control of the Committee, the advantage of being able to choose every member and every witness, and how outgunned concerned MPs are.
The next morning after public outcry a U-turn was performed. The sponsor announced they would, after all, hear from psychiatrists. Disability groups remain excluded.
Whatever side you are on, this does not bode well for careful, considered line-by-line scrutiny and improvement of the bill.
First, the Committee is much more strongly in favour of the bill then the House was at second reading (61/39 v 55/45). The sponsor is aided by Government inclusion of two pro-bill ministers permitted to vote as they choose.
Second, the ‘pro-bill’ side has been chosen for strength. Kim benefits from the moral support and presence of strong allies, including four co-sponsors, all willing to speak up even in favour of clearly daft positions like blocking the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Half (7) were elected prior to 2024.
In contrast, those on the Committee who voted against the bill are significantly disadvantaged. Only 3 of their number served prior to 2024, and some of the strongest Labour voices – such as Jess Asato, Meg Hillier and James Frith – have been excluded. Naz Shah – the only Labour MP with any experience of Parliament – is left to do the heavy lifting, alongside Conservative Danny Kruger MP.
In choosing Danny Kruger MP, one of the most vocal opponents, Kim has been canny. She will know how he riles up Labour MPs, and how difficult it will be for them to side with a Conservative, notably outspoken and on the right. No matter how reasonable the proposal, support will be portrayed as tribal transgression. He is to be their hate figure. And Team Leadbeater will do everything possible to portray this as a ‘one-man fight’ to discourage others joining in.
You could see it within the first ten minutes that the Committee did sit in public. Danny Kruger, speaking against sitting in private and making the case for transparency, was interrupted three times by Kim Leadbeater with ‘Points of Order’ that were not – as the Chair pointed out – actually Points of Order.
Her irritation at being challenged was clear.
We don’t know what happened in the hour the Committee sat in private, but when the MPs returned to a public sitting the dynamic was clear. You could see how difficult it was to challenge the sponsor; for Labour MPs to support a proposal from Danny Kruger; the quiet determination of Naz Shah and the courage it took for Sojan Joseph to back her up on the need to hear from psychiatrists.
Observing that, feeling the dynamic in the room, it will have made it that much harder for concerned MPs to push back in future meetings. Nobody should underestimate how difficult it is for MPs to speak up in a room where they know they will be labelled uncollaborative if they dissent.
Witnesses could help to redress that but it’s worth noting they skew towards a pro-bill stance. Perhaps that’s why they do not want to hear from Disability Rights groups?
Committee members are also at a further disadvantage as a result of Tuesday’s decisions. In agreeing to back-to-back sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, rather than the more usual practice of an interval between each sitting day, MPs will have little time to prepare for the next day’s sitting, and all amendments for the following week have to be tabled on a Thursday. They’ve lost the weekend. Time to reflect on what is needed, and to get each clause right, has been curtailed procedurally.
Add to this, that ‘the opposition’ have no secretariat while pro-bill MPs and the sponsor can draw on the support of well-funded campaign group Dignity in Dying. Annual reports reveal the group has been typically spending £1.6m a year to secure this legislation.
At the risk of depressing readers further, they should also be aware that if an amendment is pushed to a vote in Committee and rejected it cannot be put to the House as a whole at report stage. This puts concerned MPs in an invidious position; they dare not risk pushing matters to a division on amendments that really matter unless they have a clear indication of support from colleagues. As a result, any changes that are made are likely to be highly curated and the risk is that they are made in order to appear reasonable, rather than to ensure the bill is as good as it possibly can be.
Despite appearances, this is not something assisted dying advocates should be cheered by. Each element undermines faith in the Committee. At the end of this process you want the Committee and its members lauded for the diligence of their approach, and the hard work to improve the bill.
Kim must do everything possible now to combat the perception that is taking hold. It is in her interests to explain every motion or procedural mechanism she seeks to use, to give advance warning, to foster co-operation, and to engage with genuine concerns. And MPs outside the Committee need to show their support for those doing the hard job in the Committee room on both sides – they’ll need moral support to keep making the case for improvements to the bill.
Nikki da Costa was Director of Legislative Affairs to two Conservative Prime Ministers, Theresa May and Boris Johnson
On Tuesday, the Committee charged with the detailed scrutiny of the Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide bill voted to exclude the Royal College of Psychiatrists from giving evidence.
Despite coercion, mental state, and the role of psychiatrists being a key area of concern for many, Bill sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, led 14 MPs, including the two Government ministers, to oppose hearing from psychiatrists. Just 8 said they should be heard.
It was the second decision the Committee took that day. The first was to back the sponsor’s last-minute decision that the Committee should sit in private to discuss the list of who she had chosen to give oral evidence. A final list was only circulated to members at 10am that morning.
In just two hours we saw the extent of the sponsor’s control of the Committee, the advantage of being able to choose every member and every witness, and how outgunned concerned MPs are.
The next morning after public outcry a U-turn was performed. The sponsor announced they would, after all, hear from psychiatrists. Disability groups remain excluded.
Whatever side you are on, this does not bode well for careful, considered line-by-line scrutiny and improvement of the bill.
First, the Committee is much more strongly in favour of the bill then the House was at second reading (61/39 v 55/45). The sponsor is aided by Government inclusion of two pro-bill ministers permitted to vote as they choose.
Second, the ‘pro-bill’ side has been chosen for strength. Kim benefits from the moral support and presence of strong allies, including four co-sponsors, all willing to speak up even in favour of clearly daft positions like blocking the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Half (7) were elected prior to 2024.
In contrast, those on the Committee who voted against the bill are significantly disadvantaged. Only 3 of their number served prior to 2024, and some of the strongest Labour voices – such as Jess Asato, Meg Hillier and James Frith – have been excluded. Naz Shah – the only Labour MP with any experience of Parliament – is left to do the heavy lifting, alongside Conservative Danny Kruger MP.
In choosing Danny Kruger MP, one of the most vocal opponents, Kim has been canny. She will know how he riles up Labour MPs, and how difficult it will be for them to side with a Conservative, notably outspoken and on the right. No matter how reasonable the proposal, support will be portrayed as tribal transgression. He is to be their hate figure. And Team Leadbeater will do everything possible to portray this as a ‘one-man fight’ to discourage others joining in.
You could see it within the first ten minutes that the Committee did sit in public. Danny Kruger, speaking against sitting in private and making the case for transparency, was interrupted three times by Kim Leadbeater with ‘Points of Order’ that were not – as the Chair pointed out – actually Points of Order.
Her irritation at being challenged was clear.
We don’t know what happened in the hour the Committee sat in private, but when the MPs returned to a public sitting the dynamic was clear. You could see how difficult it was to challenge the sponsor; for Labour MPs to support a proposal from Danny Kruger; the quiet determination of Naz Shah and the courage it took for Sojan Joseph to back her up on the need to hear from psychiatrists.
Observing that, feeling the dynamic in the room, it will have made it that much harder for concerned MPs to push back in future meetings. Nobody should underestimate how difficult it is for MPs to speak up in a room where they know they will be labelled uncollaborative if they dissent.
Witnesses could help to redress that but it’s worth noting they skew towards a pro-bill stance. Perhaps that’s why they do not want to hear from Disability Rights groups?
Committee members are also at a further disadvantage as a result of Tuesday’s decisions. In agreeing to back-to-back sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, rather than the more usual practice of an interval between each sitting day, MPs will have little time to prepare for the next day’s sitting, and all amendments for the following week have to be tabled on a Thursday. They’ve lost the weekend. Time to reflect on what is needed, and to get each clause right, has been curtailed procedurally.
Add to this, that ‘the opposition’ have no secretariat while pro-bill MPs and the sponsor can draw on the support of well-funded campaign group Dignity in Dying. Annual reports reveal the group has been typically spending £1.6m a year to secure this legislation.
At the risk of depressing readers further, they should also be aware that if an amendment is pushed to a vote in Committee and rejected it cannot be put to the House as a whole at report stage. This puts concerned MPs in an invidious position; they dare not risk pushing matters to a division on amendments that really matter unless they have a clear indication of support from colleagues. As a result, any changes that are made are likely to be highly curated and the risk is that they are made in order to appear reasonable, rather than to ensure the bill is as good as it possibly can be.
Despite appearances, this is not something assisted dying advocates should be cheered by. Each element undermines faith in the Committee. At the end of this process you want the Committee and its members lauded for the diligence of their approach, and the hard work to improve the bill.
Kim must do everything possible now to combat the perception that is taking hold. It is in her interests to explain every motion or procedural mechanism she seeks to use, to give advance warning, to foster co-operation, and to engage with genuine concerns. And MPs outside the Committee need to show their support for those doing the hard job in the Committee room on both sides – they’ll need moral support to keep making the case for improvements to the bill.