Thank you, Mr Speaker,
I realise the enormity of the decision we are being asked to make today. Indeed, it will be huge for those new Members. Like all of those elected in July of this year I had only been in the House for 4 months when a Private Members Bill on Assisted Dying was brought forward in the 2015 Parliament.
I concluded in September 2015 that I could not support the legislation on assisted dying. Today I still have concerns, and whilst I have no doubt about the sincerity of the Honourable Lady for Spen Valley’s intentions. I do have to say good intentions do not always yield good results.
The importance of this debate is monumental and that is underpinned by the literally hundreds of my Aldridge-Brownhills constituents who have written to me about this matter.
As well as addressing the substantive points in the Bill I would also like to address some of the procedural matters pertaining to this legislation.
I know that the Honourable Lady for Spen Valley last week circulated a letter from our former Clerk Sir David Natzler, however I still have some grave concerns about this Bill procedurally.
It is correct that some of the most pioneering social legislation of the Post War period was introduced in a similar way, most notably the 1967 Abortion Act and the 1967 Sexual Offences Act to decriminalise homosexuality. However, both bills had gone through an extensive government led public enquiry to pave the way for legislation not least of all the Medical Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir John Peel to consider the Abortion Bill and the Wolfenden Commission to consider the laws on homosexuality something which the Bill before us today gravely lacks.
Indeed the government have set up a wide range of policy reviews and I would suggest that it would be totally appropriate for them to have considered such a review into the matter of assisted dying not least of all to consider the full implications such legislation would have for the National Health Service and not least of all the fact that there is no mention of funding on the face of the Bill.
Whilst remaining neutral the British Medical Association have set four key tests that they would want to see if the legislation is enacted. They are:
- A General Approach to cover an opt in model for Doctors.
- Protection from discrimination and abuse.
- Delivering an assisted dying service, essentially delivering this as a separate service.
- Oversight and regulation to ensure an open and transparent service.
Mr Speaker, I do not believe all of the key tests as set out by the BMA have been met.
Much also has been made in this debate and in the run up to this debate with regards to this legislation being a slippery slope and that in the future this bill will be further extended.
Well, the reason that this is so often referred to Mr Speaker, is because that is the experience from other countries who have legislated in this area.
That is the situation in Canada, where from 2027 euthanasia will be widened to include people with psychiatric illnesses.
In Belgium where euthanasia was legalised in 2002, by 2014 the law was amended to allow children the right to choose and within 3 years a 9 year old and a 11 year old became the first young children to end their lives.
As a modern society we have come to terms with death, but I truly believe we need to be more focussed on improved promotion for hospices and better palliative care with greater levels of funding and recognition for the work which they do, and I see in my own Borough in Walsall not least of all at St Giles and Acorns Children Hospices.
Mr Speaker, as I have said the Bill being brought forward maybe with the best of intentions but for the reasons I have outlined I cannot support it today.