This is Prospect’s rolling coverage of the assisted dying debate. This page will be updated with the latest from our correspondent, Mark Mardell. Read the rest of our coverage here
20th May
Many arguments against the bill are already familiar. But there’s one I expect to gain more traction: ministers are reserving an awful lot of powers to themselves. That’s a justified criticism.
It is the reason we still don’t know some critical key details about what assisted dying would look like—everything from the exact cocktail of drugs to be used, to how the service would be provided within the NHS. But among the most concerning are the so-called “Henry VIII clauses”—parliamentary slang for the ability of a cabinet minister to change legislation without parliamentary approval, on their own say-so.
Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh recently wrote a thoughtful piece for LabourList suggesting this could put the NHS at risk. It should sound a warning note. MPs might want to pay more attention to this than they currently are.
4pm
There is little doubt that Friday’s debate not only looked like a chaotic mess even to those of us who are in favour of the bill, but also felt like it to those taking part. The right-wing press are of course gleeful. But who made the mess? And who created the chaos?
Friday’s debate was procedurally ugly. MPs complained they didn’t have enough time to speak.
So how did what could have been a repeat performance of “parliament at its best” turn into a shambles?
First, let’s be honest—making laws is a messy business. Always has been. Look away while the sausage is being made and all that. I suspect some commentators have never followed a bill before, or are simply lobbing grenades to support the anti-bill forces. This bill is getting far more time than any recent private member’s bill, and it is earning far more attention than the vast majority of government bills. And rightly so—it’s important. But that means MPs and media are treating it more like high-profile government legislation.
Leadbeater herself isn’t to blame. Quite the opposite, in that it is her diligence that has created more space and more time. She’s been open, and she wants this to pass. She’s genuinely listening to critics and taking things on board. That kind of responsiveness is admirable—but when it happens mid-process, it doesn’t always look tidy. Still, as Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Even so, it shouldn’t be this murky. Jill Rutter from the Institute of Government has explained here how they should have better prepared the ground with an independent review or a government green or white paper, setting out a range of proposals which should then have been put out for consultation.
She was right. More time. More clarity.
Which brings us to the speaker—and parliament itself. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been clearer, either before the debate or during it. At key moments, he seemed oddly reluctant to spell out what would happen next. That lack of clarity is part of the problem.
Some of this, yes, is probably inevitable. But a lot of it, even to a reasonably well-attuned observer, just looks archaic. Obscurantist, even.
We all know this process is going to drag over at least three Fridays. The final session will probably be on 30th June. Maybe it won’t—but if so, someone should say so. There’s no reason not to be up front about it.
No wonder MPs got frustrated. Many weren’t allowed to speak about what they actually wanted to. Leadbeater herself couldn’t properly respond to points made about the wider process—because she had to stick rigidly to the amendment being debated. She wasn’t allowed to make general points about the bill. Nor was anyone else.
It started off sensibly enough—15 minutes each. Fair enough. But that was later cut to five. And most MPs can barely say the name of their constituency in five minutes, let alone make a real argument.
It was absurd that, in four hours of debate, only two amendments were voted on. And it’s still not clear what happens next. The speaker hasn’t said. Do MPs with important amendments who didn’t get to speak just lose their chance? Maybe. Maybe not. We don’t know.
It’s unfortunate. Maybe some of it was unavoidable. But a bit of clarity would help.
When you are kept in the dark, helplessness can soon turn into outrage, and it did.
Those in favour of the bill voted to cut the debate short. You can see why—most private member’s bills die though lack of time. Closing down the debate early ensured it will live on (why, I don’t really understand). It also gives less time for opponents to attack or sway opinions. Tactically, you’d probably do the same. But it wasn’t a great look. Surely something has to be done to stop last Friday’s choose-your-own-adjective-show running on repeat.
19th May
1pm
Entering the red zone—how much danger is Kim Leadbeater’s bill really in?
More than I previously thought, but not as much as opponents claim.
Four Labour MPs have now announced they’re changing to a more hostile position on the bill. Pendle & Clitheroe MP Jonathan Hinder will vote against, having previously voted in favour. Oldham East & Saddleworth MP Debbie Abrahams and Crawley MP Peter Lamb previously abstained and will now vote against. Kingston-upon-Hull East MP Karl Turner, who previously voted for, will apparently now abstain. This is in addition to one Conservative, former minister George Freeman, the Reform MP Lee Anderson and his former colleague Rupert Lowe, who we’ve known about for a long time. This is hardly balanced by the one new supporter. The Labour MP for Ipswich Jack Abbott, a member of the bill committee, has “confirmed that the improvements made has satisfied his previous concerns about the bill, and that he is now likely to support it at third reading”, according to Dignity in Dying.
Labour’s Jonathan Hinder made his announcement on X, saying : “We were told that the proposed safeguards were the strictest in the world, only for the approval of a High Court judge to be removed shortly after second reading. To me, this is the most obvious indicator that this bill has been rushed and a lot more work needs to be done to make it practicable and safe.
“There may be such a bill in future that I could support, but this is not it. I will vote against.”
Peter Lamb has written in huge detail about his reasons for changing his position. It is worth reading, not for the clarity of thinking but for the way his initial convictions have been battered by apparently considering some of the fundamental arguments of opponents of the bill for the first time. He says at the start: “Truth be told, I had thought that making up my mind on this would be easy. Assisted dying has always seemed to be the next great liberal reform and having been successful in the Private Member’s Bill ballot, I had considered proposing the bill myself, only being put off by knowing that I was too far down the list for there to be sufficient parliamentary time for full consideration of the bill.”
Lamb then concludes: “At the end of this process, I have come to believe that whatever the good motivations of those proposing this bill, the ethical argument they have put forward exists only so long as effective palliative care is not delivered and that despite the carefully thought-out safeguards included within the bill, its implementation and the wider consequences will go far further than they have considered. On that basis, I do not believe that the case has been made for a change in the law, and I therefore believe I am obligated to oppose the passage of the bill through the remaining stages of the process.”
Debbie Abrahams was convinced by the slippery-slope argument and the need for better palliative care, while Karl Turner told the Telegraph: “I don’t think I should be God.”
If his constituents in Hull are not readers of that august organ, they may not be aware of this change—at least to his voting intentions, rather than his lack of ambition to become the Supreme Being. Turner hasn’t updated his website, which still proclaims: “This issue involves deeply personal and profound questions, and my decision to support a change in the law was not taken lightly. I understand the genuine concerns of those who fear for the vulnerable in our society and feel it is our duty to balance choice with safeguarding.
“However, I also strongly believe that every individual deserves autonomy in how they approach the end of their life, especially those facing terminal illness. I support changing the law to allow terminally ill adults, with appropriate safeguards in place, to request and receive medically supervised assistance to end their own lives.”
These seven declared changes to voting intentions do not in themselves threaten the bill. it would take 28 MPs changing their minds to defeat Leadbeater. If you add in the seven unnamed MPs who are said to be considering switching then the “nos” are halfway there.
It does seem to me that the bill’s chances of passing are moving into the danger zone. Orange lights—if not red ones—should be flashing on the dashboard. Not least because these MPs—three of the four of them—seem to have been convinced simply by thinking about the basic arguments of their opponents.
How many more didn’t really give any serious consideration to the way they voted in the first place? That leaves us open to others changing their minds the other way—although some may have backed the bill at its second reading simply to continue the debate, in the hope they would later be convinced.
The Independent reports that Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone & Stocksbridge, is one such case. As an MP with a disability—she was born with shortened limbs and a single digit on each hand—she said she had voted for the bill in November on the understanding that it would be strengthened and improved, and that she was now satisfied that it had been.
All MPs give their constituents the impression of individual agonising. They are also, to an extent, herd beasts who will follow the crowd—and often seem unduly scared of the right-wing press.
I strongly suspect some people are deliberately keeping their powder dry until the last moment, so they can make a bigger bang when they do make an announcement.
The next few weeks are going to be incredibly tense.
