John Glen is the Conservative MP for Salisbury and PPS to the Leader of the Opposition.
When the previous iteration of the End of Life (Terminally Ill Adults) Bill was introduced, I was clear that I had many anxieties about it. The scrutiny since has not resolved those concerns; it has demonstrated how much remains contested and unresolved.
No one wants to see those towards the end of their life suffering unnecessarily. I believe that improving our palliative care services so that those at the end of their life can die in as little pain as possible is an obligation this Parliament should take more seriously. But that is not the question before us. The question is whether this Bill is fit for purpose. It is not.
If we allow this deeply flawed piece of legislation to become law, we risk catastrophic unintended consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The truth is very plain; the last iteration of this Bill saw significant slippage in safeguards, and future liberalisation seems almost inevitable.
That’s why I tabled and supported amendments to strengthen the oversight panels that replaced the originally promised High Court judge; these amendments were rejected. The High Court was a stronger safeguard than the Bill ultimately ended up with because it has the powers of a court and the independence of the judiciary.
The lack of safeguards in this Bill means that not a single medical Royal College is willing to attest to its safety. Disability charities, safeguarding organisations and palliative care doctors have all raised significant and unanswered concerns. They did so again in the House of Lords, providing painstaking testimony to two select committees. Peers in the House of Lords took that evidence seriously. They gave the Bill the scrutiny it warrants, and in doing so, demonstrated what careful parliamentary examination looks like. That work should be respected. Yet it has been ignored, and the same Bill is back before us.
Now we are being asked by Lauren Edwards to ignore all that evidence and vote for the Bill entirely unamended. She and others supporting the Bill have been very clear they want to use the Parliament Acts ‘as insurance’. MPs will be asked to reject all amendments, even the 77 the sponsors believe are necessary.
The Parliament Acts are being presented as an insurance policy. But insurance should protect against unforeseen events, not incentivise MPs to turn a blind eye to the problems we already know exist.
We are being asked to disregard the evidence and place on the statute books a Bill we know has too many holes in it. A Bill which creates a single path for people to end their lives yet places no duty on future governments to fund palliative care or alleviate other relevant social and economic circumstances that many of us fear may undermine the ‘autonomy’ its sponsors place such faith in.
This Bill is going through as a Private Members’ Bill. It hasn’t had the usual Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny or policy development that a government bill would be afforded. A Bill that is literally a matter of life and death should be given maximum possible scrutiny. Not waived through by MPs.
A vote at second reading is a vote for the Parliament Act plan. It can be taken in no other way.
And what do MPs think will happen if they do this? Will it increase the likelihood of careful work in the Commons or amendments in the Lords? Or will it embolden the sponsor, knowing there is nothing now between the Bill and the statute books – no imperative to listen or reflect? No Bill with the Parliament Acts in play has seen anything other than minimal amendment.
I’ve successfully sponsored two Private Members’ Bills, both of which were consequential yet uncontentious pieces of legislation – exactly what a private bill should be – One became the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which gave families of missing people a simplified legal path through one of the most painful situations imaginable; and the second erased the legislative provision that allowed merchant seamen to be dismissed on the grounds of their sexuality.
In the case of this Bill, however, we’re considering something that would fundamentally alter the relationship between patient, doctor and state.
As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to create robust legislation. This Bill is the opposite. It automatically comes into force after four years, no matter what is left undone or unresolved. With dozens of delegated powers, it is very much a case of legislate now, decide later, with little further say for Parliament. This is not the way to deal with a matter of profound consequence.
We must heed the voices of the most vulnerable and their advocates; this Bill does nowhere near enough to safeguard disabled people – if we pass this Bill as it is, we will put them at risk: of coercion, of feeling a burden, of feeling devalued.
As Conservatives, we believe in the first and best safeguard – proper process, proper scrutiny and proper legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me on 11 September in voting against this Bill.
John Glen is the Conservative MP for Salisbury and PPS to the Leader of the Opposition.
When the previous iteration of the End of Life (Terminally Ill Adults) Bill was introduced, I was clear that I had many anxieties about it. The scrutiny since has not resolved those concerns; it has demonstrated how much remains contested and unresolved.
No one wants to see those towards the end of their life suffering unnecessarily. I believe that improving our palliative care services so that those at the end of their life can die in as little pain as possible is an obligation this Parliament should take more seriously. But that is not the question before us. The question is whether this Bill is fit for purpose. It is not.
If we allow this deeply flawed piece of legislation to become law, we risk catastrophic unintended consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The truth is very plain; the last iteration of this Bill saw significant slippage in safeguards, and future liberalisation seems almost inevitable.
That’s why I tabled and supported amendments to strengthen the oversight panels that replaced the originally promised High Court judge; these amendments were rejected. The High Court was a stronger safeguard than the Bill ultimately ended up with because it has the powers of a court and the independence of the judiciary.
The lack of safeguards in this Bill means that not a single medical Royal College is willing to attest to its safety. Disability charities, safeguarding organisations and palliative care doctors have all raised significant and unanswered concerns. They did so again in the House of Lords, providing painstaking testimony to two select committees. Peers in the House of Lords took that evidence seriously. They gave the Bill the scrutiny it warrants, and in doing so, demonstrated what careful parliamentary examination looks like. That work should be respected. Yet it has been ignored, and the same Bill is back before us.
Now we are being asked by Lauren Edwards to ignore all that evidence and vote for the Bill entirely unamended. She and others supporting the Bill have been very clear they want to use the Parliament Acts ‘as insurance’. MPs will be asked to reject all amendments, even the 77 the sponsors believe are necessary.
The Parliament Acts are being presented as an insurance policy. But insurance should protect against unforeseen events, not incentivise MPs to turn a blind eye to the problems we already know exist.
We are being asked to disregard the evidence and place on the statute books a Bill we know has too many holes in it. A Bill which creates a single path for people to end their lives yet places no duty on future governments to fund palliative care or alleviate other relevant social and economic circumstances that many of us fear may undermine the ‘autonomy’ its sponsors place such faith in.
This Bill is going through as a Private Members’ Bill. It hasn’t had the usual Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny or policy development that a government bill would be afforded. A Bill that is literally a matter of life and death should be given maximum possible scrutiny. Not waived through by MPs.
A vote at second reading is a vote for the Parliament Act plan. It can be taken in no other way.
And what do MPs think will happen if they do this? Will it increase the likelihood of careful work in the Commons or amendments in the Lords? Or will it embolden the sponsor, knowing there is nothing now between the Bill and the statute books – no imperative to listen or reflect? No Bill with the Parliament Acts in play has seen anything other than minimal amendment.
I’ve successfully sponsored two Private Members’ Bills, both of which were consequential yet uncontentious pieces of legislation – exactly what a private bill should be – One became the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which gave families of missing people a simplified legal path through one of the most painful situations imaginable; and the second erased the legislative provision that allowed merchant seamen to be dismissed on the grounds of their sexuality.
In the case of this Bill, however, we’re considering something that would fundamentally alter the relationship between patient, doctor and state.
As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to create robust legislation. This Bill is the opposite. It automatically comes into force after four years, no matter what is left undone or unresolved. With dozens of delegated powers, it is very much a case of legislate now, decide later, with little further say for Parliament. This is not the way to deal with a matter of profound consequence.
We must heed the voices of the most vulnerable and their advocates; this Bill does nowhere near enough to safeguard disabled people – if we pass this Bill as it is, we will put them at risk: of coercion, of feeling a burden, of feeling devalued.
As Conservatives, we believe in the first and best safeguard – proper process, proper scrutiny and proper legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me on 11 September in voting against this Bill.