I almost didn’t get to speak to Kim Leadbeater. The 48-year-old Labour MP for Spen Valley is in such high demand that she rescheduled our interview – twice. In fact, in the lift on the way up to her parliamentary office on an inconspicuous wood-panelled corridor of Portcullis House, I was told by a member of her team that she had nearly cancelled. It was a bracing day in February, and she fitted me in after another commitment, racing back from the Ministry of Justice, bristling with energy.
Her animated air is easy to understand. Leadbeater has risen to national attention in recent weeks as a result of her ongoing sponsorship of a private members’ bill to legalise assisted dying, currently making its way through the Commons. This back-bench form of legislation doesn’t usually demand quite so much of its sponsor’s time, nor does it typically make the MP in question headline news: other ongoing, and more anonymous, examples currently include a bill to outlaw deepfake porn while another aims to relax alcohol licensing hours. But Leadbeater’s proposed law is different. Tabled towards the end of last year, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has triggered something quite rare in politics: a national debate about our collective ethics. If it passes into legislation later this year, terminally ill patients with six months or less to live will be legally permitted to end their own lives. It could fundamentally change our attitude towards medicine and concepts of care in our society – and our relationship with death itself.
The use of a private members’ bill – rather than a standard, government-led submission – for this kind of thorny, emotional and contentious issue is routine. The 1967 Abortion Act which legalised the termination of unwanted pregnancies (under certain conditions) was a private members’ bill tabled by the Liberal MP David Steel. Leadbeater’s was first brought before Parliament in November last year and passed through its second reading in the Commons by 330 votes to 275. It proposes giving terminally ill people the right to choose to end their own life, a change to current law which, if broken, risks imprisonment or criminal charges for those involved. When we met, Leadbeater described the UK’s existing laws as an “injustice” – something which, she said she has “always had a very strong sense of dealing with”.
To qualify for assisted dying – as the bill currently stands – patients must be over 18, live in England or Wales and have been registered with a GP for 18 months. It stipulates that they must have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure. They must be expected to die within six months and must make two separate declarations (both of which must be witnessed and signed) about their wish to die. Their decision must also receive sign-off from two doctors and – when I spoke to Leadbeater – a High Court judge.
A week prior to our interview, the Times reported that the required judicial sign-off was on the verge of being dropped in favour of a vaguely described “panel of experts”. From the moment Leadbeater’s bill was selected in the Speaker’s ballot, concerns around whether it would include appropriate safeguards to protect vulnerable people from being coerced into this process were rife – with many MPs only voting in favour on the condition of the High Court’s inclusion.
Somewhat surprisingly, Leadbeater told me some voices have accused her bill of being too cautious compared to assisted dying laws in countries like Canada, where judicial approval is not a requirement. Twice during our interview, Leadbeater mentioned evidence given during the bill’s committee stage by England’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, who warned of creating a “bureaucratic thicket” if safeguards were made too complicated. (It should be noted that in the same session Whitty also said it is “extremely difficult” for a doctor to assess when a terminally ill patient might die.) “Some countries would say to me, ‘Actually, Kim, you’re making this too difficult for people who are dying by adding all of these different layers.’ I disagree. I think we need another layer of safeguarding and scrutiny [above medical approval]. A High Court judge, I think, is a very effective way of doing that.”
But when I asked Leadbeater directly, she confirmed that removing the High Court judge requirement was her intention: “What I have found from many meetings that I’ve had with different organisations and professionals is that perhaps a multidisciplinary approach would be better.” Leadbeater explained that this so-called panel of experts could include social workers, psychiatrists and others involved “in that patient’s health and care journey”. Writing in the Guardian, Leadbeater has explained that the panel would have a “legal chair”, describing the change as “judge plus”.
Since the amendment was tabled, several previously supportive MPs have begun to waver. One Labour MP who voted for the bill at its second reading but plans to vote against when it returns to the Commons told me she is in favour of assisted dying in principle but cannot back the bill in its current form – a decision she described as “distressing”.
The multidisciplinary nature of this “panel of experts” would mirror the multidisciplinary way in which terminally ill patients are treated, Leadbeater explained. “This isn’t something which I think should sit outside of the NHS, or healthcare more broadly,” she told me, “because this is our opportunity to take a really holistic approach to end-of-life care, conversations and choice. If you remove it from everything else, that just doesn’t feel right to me.” This holistic, parallel approach makes sense in an ideal world, but it is a high bar for an NHS which is on its knees. Figures from NHS England for the week ending 4 February revealed that 96 per cent of adult hospital beds were occupied and waiting lists remain high. Is the health service ready for an undertaking as complex as this – materially and morally?
Leadbeater thinks so. “The thing to remember is these are not new patients. We’re not going to suddenly have an influx of new patients in the NHS; these patients are terminally ill. They will already be under the treatment of a doctor.” Though that may be true, the delivery of assisted dying will depend on having adequate resources to do so safely. Yet the NHS is chronically understaffed and underresourced – so too is the UK’s ailing social care system. Last year the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, expressed his concern that the introduction of assisted dying in England and Wales would divert resources from other operations or services. But Leadbeater has a resolute conviction that the crisis in the NHS is a surmountable problem, and her outlook is a clarion call to the government. “It’s absolutely right to acknowledge we have an NHS facing serious problems,” she said, “but the start of government is the right time to deal with those problems.”
Though the government has remained neutral on this bill and allowed MPs a free vote on the issue, some cabinet members have expressed their opinions publicly. Streeting and the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood – within whose briefs assisted dying would fall – have both come out against the bill. In October, Mahmood told the Times she would vote against the legislation due to her belief in the “sanctity” of human life. Streeting’s opposition stems from a concern that end-of-life care in the UK is not good enough.
Is the opposition of two essential, high-profile cabinet members a concern for Leadbeater? “I fully respect that within parliament there are a range of views,” she said, “but ultimately, the Leader of the House [Lucy Powell] has said, on multiple occasions, that if this is passed, the government will step in to make sure it is workable and operable.” Though she added, smiling nervously: “I’m friends with these people, so it really matters to me that all those different views are respected.”
On 16 June 2016, Leadbeater’s sister Jo Cox was murdered. The 41-year-old MP for Batley and Spen in Yorkshire was shot and killed by Thomas Mair, a far-right activist, while on the way to a constituency surgery to meet local residents. Cox was born in Batley and her family still lived in the area. Her murder, which took place just days before the Brexit referendum, brought British politics to a standstill.
Five years later, Leadbeater was selected as the Labour candidate in a by-election to replace Tracy Brabin as the MP for Batley and Spen. Before becoming an MP, Leadbeater was a lecturer in physical health at the University of Bradford and a personal trainer. This craving for activity has stuck with her; as we said goodbye after the interview, Leadbeater bounced around on the balls of her feet as if warming up for an afternoon of jogging.
By entering parliament, Leadbeater is continuing her sister’s legacy, but the terrible shock of her death has had a deep and lasting impact. In some ways, it has influenced her position on assisted dying. “I think, if I’m honest, my own experience of death, particularly following the murder of my sister – you have a situation there where you literally have no control, in the worst way possible,” Leadbeater told me. “What assisted dying does, in very different circumstances, is it gives people an opportunity to take control in their most difficult times and when they’re at their most vulnerable.”
It’s obvious why Leadbeater feels so strongly about this issue: it’s personal. Throughout our interview she fizzes with determination, clearly galvanised by the opportunity to make a difference. But a bill such as this is a major undertaking – and Leadbeater visibly takes criticism personally, bristling each time a critique is put to her.
The bill has plenty of opponents. One prominent voice is the Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who is also a member of the bill committee. Kruger told me that he and Leadbeater do not “agree” on the “dangers of the bill” in that it could lead to vulnerable people being coerced. Since it was announced that the requirement for approval from a High Court judge would be removed, Kruger’s concerns have intensified. “I think it’s wrong on a number of levels,” he told me. “More than anything else, it was that element of the bill that secured its passage at second reading. I think to scrap it now at the committee stage is really bad.”
But Leadbeater is resolute in her belief in the bill. “As someone who’s been living and breathing this, I can tell you: it hasn’t been rushed; it has been done extremely thoroughly; and there are some fantastic people working very hard on it,” she said. “Look, if we’re honest, there are some people who would never, ever vote for a piece of legislation like this for a variety of reasons,” she added.
An issue raised by both sides is the risk of coercion – something that is notoriously hard to detect and to prove. If assisted dying is introduced, how will the legislation protect vulnerable patients from being pressured into making such a momentous decision? Leadbeater insists she is working on measures to stop this from happening. “I’ve laid down amendments about multiple assessments for capacity and multiple opportunities to check for coercion,” Leadbeater told me, adding that its prevention “really means a lot to myself and to parliamentary colleagues”.
“I think it’s an enormous bill she’s carrying,” said Kruger; “it’s an enormous burden which would usually be carried by government. This is a bill that is bigger than anything the government is doing; it’s possibly the most important piece of legislation that we’ve had in parliament for the past century.”
Kruger is right. If this bill passes, terminally ill patients in England and Wales will be able to access a service that legally allows them to end their own lives. Such a colossal change in the law must be carried out safely. “People in politics and the media want to get obsessed with process,” Leadbeater said, clearly exasperated, “and I understand that’s important.” She added: “But for me, it is about the human beings at the centre of this. [We must] bring the conversation back to them.”
[See also: We need to talk about dying]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
Content from our partners
This article appears in the 19 Feb 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Europe Alone