Mary Kelly Foy: Why we need more time to debate assisted dying
Some of the contributions, on both sides of the debate, were incredible. It showed that when MPs are allowed to debate on policy, rather than party lines, we can have a genuine, heartfelt discussion. I hope we can have more of them in the future.
Labour MPs like Diane Abbott, Florence Eshalomi, Meg Hillier and Rachael Maskell gave powerful speeches, outlining their scepticism towards the Bill. Drawing on their personal experiences, as well as those of their constituents, they explored the shortcomings of the legislation and the risks it posed to vulnerable people. MPs from other party’s did the same, like Sorcha Eastwood from the Alliance, and Edward Leigh from the Tories.
On the opposing side, Kim Leadbeater from Labour and Kit Malthouse from the Conservatives gave compassionate speeches in favour. I didn’t agree with them, but it was clear that they were motivated by good, honest intentions – something that’s easy to forget in politics.
I had my own speech prepared, but I was nervous that I wouldn’t be called to speak; so, I tried intervening instead. Thankfully, Diane Abbott gave way to me during her speech.
Since the debate was announced, I’d carefully read the correspondence of my constituents in the City of Durham, as well as the pros and cons of the Bill. One argument struck a nerve, though, which was the risks the legislation posed to disabled people. And that was the key issue I wanted to raise in Parliament.
It’s also personal to me because my daughter, Maria, lived her life with severe disabilities. Since her birth, I was told on many occasions that she would only have six months to live. She lived for 27 years. Maria was also non-verbal. Reflecting on this during the debate filled me with anxiety about what might happen to people, like Maria, who are non-verbal, and don’t have somebody speaking out for them.
In other words, where were the safeguards for people like Maria? In my view, there weren’t any.
Usually, these concerns could be addressed at a later stage. But this was a Private Members’ Bill, which isn’t afforded the same scrutiny as government legislation – which usually receives far more time for analysis, debate and scrutiny.
Whatever your feelings are on assisted dying, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that important policies should receive proper examination by a broad range of MPs and experts.
That’s why I’ve been calling on the government to give more time for MPs to debate the Bill. Cynics might say this is a stalling tactic, but I want to hear from as many MPs as possible, on both sides of the debate. Sometimes debates change people’s minds, and I was touched when an MP cited the contributions from Diane, Florence and me as a reason for their change of heart.
Over one hundred MPs who wanted to give a speech, including me, weren’t chosen, and had to rely on extremely short interventions. Their constituents, like mine in the City of Durham, deserve to have their voices heard.