Serious and Profound

Diane Abbott writes:

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is one of the most pernicious pieces of draft legislation to come before Parliament in recent memory.

It has also been blatantly mishandled, with some of its leading supporters making statements that are clearly false, blocking opponents of the bill from giving evidence in committee, and generally treating them with contempt.

These two factors are linked. Supporters of the bill seem generally reluctant to argue the bill on its merits, although there are a small number of exceptions. Instead, underhand and anti-democratic measures are used, such as a parade of Australian advocates of the bill giving evidence (and Australia has one of the worst models for this type of legislation) while campaigners against the bill, including key groups advocating for disabled people, are effectively denied a voice.

This conforms to an iron law of politics – whenever a deeply unjustifiable measure is being promoted, it is never argued on its merits. It is always presented in an underhand or dishonest way.

The deeply flawed content of the bill is commensurate with the deeply flawed process that is taking place. I have seen many very fine Private Members’ Bills die instantly without government support. Instead, this has been given fast-tracked government support, preventing proper scrutiny of the bill. In effect, this is a bill with the lack of scrutiny of a Private Members’ Bill but with the accelerated passage of a key government priority.

I do not know why the government has treated the bill in this way. Backbenchers have not been kept informed, although we read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister supports it, for reasons unknown. One article suggested that a number of former directors of public prosecutions support the bill because it clears up a messy area of the law. The idea that we should ever adopt a bill simply because it makes life less inconvenient for public prosecutors is ridiculous. When the bill allows the state to authorise the ending of life, the idea becomes toxic.

In the debate in the Commons, we were repeatedly assured that a key guarantee regarding the application of the bill would be the safeguard of a High Court judge in the process. We are now told that this is unfeasible, and that it would further clog up the courts. Replacing judges with a ‘panel of experts’ is a joke in bad taste. If the panel repeatedly strikes out applications for assisted suicide, it will be regarded as thwarting the will of Parliament and the members would soon be replaced. Over time, there will be an in-built bias to allow applications.

And who will this affect? It will not be celebrities, TV personalities and the very well-to-do who have been the prominent advocates for this radical change. It will be the poor, the disenfranchised and ethnic minorities who already feel pressured by our leading institutions.

Crucially, there is not a single campaign or institution representing disabled people that supports this bill. Experience tells them they are last in line for resources, or even for human decency. The operation of similar legislation elsewhere fills them with dread.

Under pressure, only two disability rights organisations have been allowed to given oral evidence in committee. The head of policy at Disability Rights UK told members that the bill will have a “serious and profound” negative impact on disabled people and how they are treated in society.

The authors of the bill seem to have no regard or understanding of the problems already faced by disabled people. They have a dismissive attitude towards their concerns.

A bill purporting to give people choice will deny the vulnerable the most important choice of all.