Things have gone quiet for now with regard to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill but in a matter of weeks the issue will start heating up again. Just before the Christmas recess the Bill Committee met for the first time in a private session and soon the Committee’s public meetings will begin. This is where amendments will be proposed and debated by MPs on both sides of the debate.

The way the debates around each amendment are framed and the outcome of each vote will be critical in determining the final shape of the Bill and also its ultimate fate when it comes up for the decisive vote at Third Reading in the House of Commons.

Shortly after the Bill passed Second Reading, Kim Leadbeater was reported as expressing a desire for the membership of the Bill Committee to reflect the range of views represented during the debate at Second Reading. While there is a veneer of balance regarding the membership of the Committee with 9 of the 23 members being MPs who opposed the Bill at Second Reading, it really is no more than a veneer. Madeline Grant has already shined the spotlight on the shortcomings of the Committee’s membership and there is no need to repeat the points she made here. It is, however, worth dwelling on what I believe the guiding strategy appears to be regarding how Kim Leadbeater and her supporters intend to railroad this flawed Bill through Parliament.

It is interesting that the bulk of the nine MPs on the Committee who voted against the Bill at Second Reading are new MPs with very little general Parliamentary experience and no particular experience at all of a Bill’s Committee Stage. This contrasts with the extensive experience of the majority of the 14 MPs who voted in favour of the Bill at Second Reading.

Three of the new Labour MPs on the Committee who voted against the Bill at the end of November stand out in particular: Jack Abbott, Sojan Joseph and Sean Woodcock. These three new Labour MPs could accurately be described as “soft” opponents of the Bill, or in Leadbeater’s words “constructive” opponents! This is evident from some of their comments on this issue both publicly and in correspondence with their constituents.

It would be difficult to find softer “opponents” of the Bill

Jack Abbott stated in an email to a constituent after the Second Reading vote, “I will be honest with you. I believe, in principle, that people should have the choice to end their life on their own terms.” He went on to say, “As I said earlier, I believe in the principle of assisted dying, and if these risks were properly assessed and minimised, I would likely make a different choice, either at a later stage of this Bill, or if other legislation is proposed in the future.” At the same time, Sojan Joseph stated, “I am currently not in favour of the Bill in its current form and will be voting against it on Friday, however, I would be open to rethinking my stance if stronger safeguards were in place.” Sean Woodcock went even further in stating, “I absolutely believe in bodily autonomy. I will push to improve the Bill on the areas that I was concerned about, and I hope that this makes it acceptable for me to vote ‘Aye’ at Third Reading.”

It would be difficult to find softer “opponents” of the Bill. None of them spoke against it at Second Reading and I am not aware of any of them having a real background on this issue.

Perhaps as an ex-MP who recently completed a bruising Parliamentary term, I may be a bit too cynical. But it seems to me that these three Labour MPs have been chosen to be on the Bill Committee partly due to their likelihood of flipping after Committee Stage into supporting the Bill. There will be a huge focus on assuaging the concerns of these three so when one, two or all of them flip, it will be marketed as a great triumph for Leadbeater.

What other rational justification could there be for these three being on the Committee when you have other Labour MPs with far deeper knowledge of the issue and Parliamentary experience, such as Dr Ben Spencer and Rachael Maskell, both of whom spoke against the Bill at Second Reading, and would have the ability to thoroughly probe the Bill at Committee stage?

It all seems like a set-up to me.

I imagine a similar approach will be adopted by Leadbeater regarding amendments. I suspect the architects of the Bill have already worked out which amendments they will accept and which ones are unpalatable. A few limited amendments will be approved and badged up as a great compromise when in reality very little will likely change. There may also be some amendments from the Bill’s supporters that will be designed to make Leadbeater look reasonable and moderate when she rejects them. The more substantive amendments likely tabled by the stronger opponents of the Bill on the Committee will almost certainly be voted down.

Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill is one of the most consequential bills to have come to Parliament for many years. It should be subjected to the most probing of examinations at every stage, including at Committee. Sadly, one suspects from the membership of this Committee that the priority is more likely to be theatre and game-playing than genuine scrutiny.