Tory MP attempts to gag criticism of assisted dying committee after Down Syndrome vote

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inbox

Get our free View from Westminster email

Get our free View from Westminster email

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A former minister and key ally of Kim Leadbeater’s bid to introduce assisted dying into the UK has attempted to gag criticism of the bill committee dealing with the controversial legislation.

Tory MP Kit Malthouse, who has been a cheerleader for the bill and sits on the committee, made a dramatic point of order after a majority voted down an amendment to protect people with Down Syndrome by 13 to 8.

The amendment’s defeat added to growing concerns from campaign groups that vulnerable and disabled people or people with long term conditions will not be protected by the legislation into being coerced to end their lives early.

open image in gallery

The amendment had been drawn up and supported by 50 groups including Down’s Syndrome UK, Down’s Syndrome Scotland, and the National Down’s Syndrome Policy Group.

But after similar amendments on diabetes and mental health were rejected, Mr Malthouse appeared to believe they were being weaponised to attack the committee which has a majority of pro-assisted dying MPs on it.

In an apparent bid to silence criticism, he made a point of order asking if action could be taken against those who misrepresent the committee.

Mr Malthouse said: “If anybody, if any Member or indeed anybody externally, were for example, to attempt to misrepresent part of the debate on those amendments. What possibly could we do?

“So, for example, somebody could in regards to the amendment in to regard to people with Down Syndrome, imply, or state on social media that the committee has refused to look at accommodations for people with Down Syndrome and therefore would be disregarding welfare under the bill.

“That you will be aware would be a serious misrepresentation of both the debate and the intention and if anybody did that, either a member of the House generally or somebody externally. What measures could we take to correct that?”

He was told it was not a matter for the chair and would need to ask the House authorities.

But the issue arose less than a week after Keir Starmer and JD Vance publicly clashed over free speech in the UK with the US vice president claiming that there were too many clampdowns on social media.

Lynn Murray, spokesperson for Don’t Screen Us Out, whose 25-year-old daughter Rachel has Down Syndrome, said: “I’m very disappointed that the amendment aimed at protecting people with Down Syndrome was voted down today.

“Multiple organisations representing people with Down’s syndrome made clear explicit protection in the Bill for people with Down’s syndrome is necessary to ensure safeguards from the negative impact this Bill would have on our community.

She also accused Mr Malthouse of trying to threaten campaigners.

She said: “The behaviour of Kit Malthouse in the committee was disturbing. He appeared to be threatening organisations representing people with Down Syndrome simply for criticising the committee’s decision. We will not be silenced in our desire to protect the vulnerable.”

Nicola Enoch chief executive of Down Syndrome UK (DSUK): “Sadly, we know that in so many ways across society, the lives of those with Down Syndrome are too often misunderstood and devalued. This makes people with Down Syndrome especially vulnerable to coercion and pressure under assisted suicide laws.”

Rachael Ross of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group (NDSPG) added: “Many people with Down syndrome and other disabilities are now outliving their parents or guardians. The consequence of this is that they can be highly dependent upon the state and healthcare organisations. Getting this Bill right to ensure that those with Down Syndrome are properly protected could not be more important. As it stands, the Leadbeater Bill does not adequately protect those with Down syndrome. They’re particularly at risk.”

However, Ms Leadbeater has constantly argued that the rules in her bill around who would be able to end their life early are tight and do not need a list of conditions attached.

She told The Independent: “Look at clause two, the definition of terminal illness, the really important terms are, it has to be inevitably progressive and it cannot be reversed by treatment.”