Rantzen accused of being ‘disrespectful’ after suggesting critics of assisted dying motivated by undeclared religious views
Hoyle called Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has introduced the bill, to open the debate.
Leadbeater started with some general points about the changes to the bill in committee, but Hoyle intervened and asked her to speak specifically about the amendments.
The Labour MPs Jess Asato intervened to ask Leadbeater if she would disassociate herself from what she said was Esther Rantzen’s “distasteful and disrespectful” about opponents of the bill being motivated by undeclared religious beliefs. (See 9.20am.)
Leadbeater claimed that she had not seen those comments. But she said that it was important that, whatever people’s views in this debate, “we must remain respectful”.
Key events
Care minister Stephen Kinnock on why government sees NC10(a), being voted on now, as unworkable
During his winding up speech Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, suggested that NC10(a) would be unworkable.
He said:
It is not clear how this is intended to work alongside other obligations on professionals elsewhere in the bill to perform certain duties. As a result, employees may end up with conflicting obligations.
It is also not clear how this amendment will work with the protection for employees from detriment and unfair dismissal by their employers, should they choose to participate in the provision of assisted dying.
If employers can prevent their entire workforce from participating in the provision of assisted dying, then the service may not be available or could be much more difficult to access.
MPs vote on amendment that would allow bosses to stop their workers providing assisted dying services
The Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, moves NC10. (See 10.22am). It passes by acclamation.
They are now voting an NC10(a), an amendemnt to NC10 tabled by Rebecca Paul, an opponent of the bill. It would ensure that employers opposed to assisted dying can also stop their employees providing assisted dying services.
Supporters of assisted dying win first vote, by majority of 49
Supporters of assisted dying have won the first vote, a procedural one to move to the votes.
The closure motion was passed by 288 votes to 239 – a majority of 49.
The Speaker has sent the serjeant at arms to investigate a delay in the no lobby.
(That might be deliberate time wasting.)
The tellers for the ayes are Bambos Charalambous and Sarah Owen, two supporters of the bill who were tellers for the ayes in the second reading vote in November. They are both Labour MPs.
The tellers for the noes are Patricia Ferguson and Ruth Jones, who voted against the bill at second reading.
All four of them are Labour MPs.
So, although this is a procedural vote, in practice it amounts to a proxy vote for or against on the bill. Not passing a closure motion, and allowing a debate to go and and on, is a means of wrecking private member’s legislation.
Kit Malthouse, a supporter of the bill, moves a closure motion (“that the question now be put”). Some MPs object, and so the Speaker calls a division.
This is not a vote on an amendment. It is a vote to end the debate and to move on to the votes.
Jeremy Wright (Con) asks if the panel looking at assisted dying cases will be able to look into matters not brought before it.
Kinnock says the panel has to be satisfied that the correct steps have been taken.
He says the government’s view is that Wright’s amendment on this (amendment 47 – see 1.15pm) is that the purpose of this is already covered by other parts of the bill.
Kinnock is now running through other amendments tabled to the bill which were drafted without government support. He highlights technical problems with them.
Stephen Kinnock, a health minister, is winding up for the government. He stresses that the government is neutral.
He is explaining some of the new clauses tabled by Kim Leadbeater. He says she had support from the government to ensure that her amendments were workable.
Referring to Rebecca Paul’s NC17 and NC18 (see 11.17am), he says it is not clear how these would work.
And he sums up the impact of some other tidying up amendments tabled by Leadbeater, which he indicates the government is happy with form a workability point of view.
Anna Dixon (Lab) raises a point of order, and asks the Speaker if amendments not debated today can be debated at a future point if there is a closure motion today.
Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, says he will make a decision about a closure motion if one is moved.
Mullan says MPs are public servants. He says it is unreasonable of people to accuse them of acting in bad faith just becaue they don’t like their stance on assisted dying.
And, referring to Esther Rantzen’s letter (see 9.53am), he says it was wrong to suggest the undeclared religious views were motivating people opposed to the bill.
Kieran Mullan, a shadow justice minister, is summing up on behalf of the Conseratives from the opposition front bench. He stresses that the Conservative party is neutral on the bill.
Jess Asato (Lab) intervenes to say there has not been a proper debate today. She says there are nine MPs with amendments on the order paper who have not had a chance to speak. She goes on:
How can we call that a debate when we haven’t even heard why they are proposing amendments in the first place?
Sarah Olney (Lib Dem) told MPs she did not have strong views on assisted dying before the debate last year, but after considering the matter carefully, she voted against because she thought the risk of vulnerable people being coerced into assisted dying was too high.
The Labour MP Simon Opher, a GP and a supporter of the bill, told the Commons he was opposed to the proposal to stop doctors raising assisted dying with patients unless they asked about it first. (See 11.25am.) As the Telegraph reports, Opher said:
As doctors we must under our ethical obligations give options to patients and if we are absolutely forbidden from doing this, and this would make it a crime to do this … This totally wrecks the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and actually unworkable.
The Labour MP Naz Shah used her speech to explain her amendment 14, intended to stop people with anorexia seeking assisted dying. (See 10.59am.)
I’ve spoken to parents of a girl who had … diabetes and complexities of anorexia. They came to parliament and they said the law that helped them, the law that assisted them, because their daughter wanted to go to Dignitas was because it would have been illegal, and that’s the law we today are trying to change.
If the safeguards in this bill fail, even once, it will be a young woman like Jessica who dies, it will be parents like Leslie and Neil who lose a child. That is a terrible tragedy no family should ever have to endure.
No-one in this House will be able to say truthfully that we did not know or didn’t see this coming. That is not compassion, that is abandonment. I will not be complicit in that and I hope this House will not be either.
Jeremy Wright, who was attorney general and culture secretary in the last Conservative government, used his speech in the debate to explain why he has tabled amendment 47, which says the assistedy dying commisioner must notify anyone who are “likely to have an interest” in the case if someone is seeking to use the assisted dying procedure.
He said:
The problem is that under the bill as it stands it’s very difficult and perhaps impossible for those who know the person seeking a certificate well to know that those proceedings are under way or in prospect.
They may not know, and nobody has to tell them, that the person has made the relevant declarations, or even that they have an intention to die, or indeed that there is any reason to submit any evidence they may have.
Now, I’m not saying that every case where someone has not told their family and friends of their decision to seek an assisted death will be concerning, but I think it is fair to say that a disproportionate number of the concerning cases will be in that category, and in those cases the panel may be making a judgment in the absence of relevant, perhaps crucial, evidence, and they simply cannot do their job properly if that is so.
At one point in the debate Simon Hoare (Con) raised a point of order to complain that Kim Leadbeater, sponsor of the bill, was not in the chamber. He said:
How can the supporter of the bill, the sponsor of the bill respond to whether or not to accept amendments to her proposed legislation, if she is not in the chamber to hear the arguments? Is it not a discourtesy to the House and those who have spent some considerable time working on amendments on both sides of the argument, for her not to be here, to hear what they are advocating?
Deputy Speaker Caroline Noakes said this was “not a matter for the chair”.
