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
16th June
The political temperature is likely to soar this week as the days tick by towards Friday, when MPs will cast what many consider the most important votes of their careers—on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
This Friday will be make-or-break for assisted dying in England and Wales when Kim Leadbeater’s bill reaches its third reading. MPs will either kill the bill or allow it to continue to the House of Lords.
Opponents were given a major symbolic boost last Friday when, for the first time, its sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, suffered an important defeat in the House of Commons. MPs voted for an amendment from Labour MP Meg Hillier to prevent doctors from discussing assisted dying with those under the age of 18.
Shortly after the vote I asked one key opponent of the bill, Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central, what she made of it. She told me: “I do believe that the MPs who were in the debate today engaged with the evidence, and are starting to see the cracks emerge in the bill. This is even more so now that so many Royal Colleges and professional bodies are withdrawing their support. No matter people’s view on the principle of assisted dying, it is so evident that this bill is so unsafe. While I talked about the drugs, the issues of coercion, scrutiny, the quasi-judicial role and someone’s own mental health are recurrent themes which are exposing just how vulnerable people will die unnecessarily.”
This is the chink in Leadbetter’s armour that her opponents have been seeking for some time—and now 50 of them from the Labour benches have written to the leader of the House, Lucy Powell, demanding more time for scrutiny of the bill.
How significant is this?
Whether or not you accept the Independent’s argument that this is a “major challenge” to Keir Starmer or see it as I do—as a clever tactical move that is bound to fail—it piles on the pressure and will make those who want the bill to pass nervous.
Shortly after breaking the news of the letter on X, Paul Brand, ITV’s home editor, wrote: “Having double-checked the names on the list, all but a handful voted against the bill at 2nd reading” and the rest had already said they had changed their minds.
He added: “The letter does not signify a new wave of switches—yet”. That is a very important qualification. But Friday’s debate does show the volatility of MPs’ moods, and what happens when the whips aren’t herding people into the “right” lobby and instead MPs are allowed to examine the issues one by one.
What of their argument? In the letter, the MPs argue: “The fact that such fundamental changes are being made to this Bill at the eleventh hour is not a badge of honour, it is a warning. The private member’s bill process has shown itself to be a woefully inadequate vehicle for the introduction of such a foundational change to our NHS and the relationship between doctor and patient.
“New Clause 2 was added to the Bill last Friday with a sizeable majority. Such a profound alteration to this Bill at the last minute reflects the discomfort uniting the House about the current format of this Bill and the desire to further amend it to protect vulnerable people.”
The Hansard Society has published what amounts to a detailed rebuttal of the “not enough time” argument—while conceding that the government could have done more, and that things should have been done differently.
Here is part of what it says. “Some critics point to the limited number of amendments accepted from opponents. But in the world of legislative process, this is far from unusual. That the committee agreed 41 amendments tabled by MPs other than the sponsor (32 of them from MPs who voted against the bill at Second Reading), of which two were against the sponsor’s wishes, actually makes the assisted dying bill a rarity. Almost all non-government amendments to government bills—often thousands per session—fail. During scrutiny of the 1967 Abortion Bill, another PMB, the only amendments accepted were those backed by its sponsor, David Steel.”
Of course, the argument that it’s had a lot of time compared to other bills is not an argument to say it shouldn’t have even more time, because it’s so significant.
The tone and the development of the debate on Friday was interesting. The proponents of the bill hardly spoke at all and the opponents’ arguments were largely repetitious until late in the day. For understandable reasons there has been little humour in this debate—until, that is, Labour’s Blair McDougall spoke. “Many honourable Members will be guided by their religion when they vote on these issues. Although I deeply respect that, I am not a person of faith. If there is a booming baritone voice appealing to my conscience, it is not that of God, but that of Nye Bevan, who was concerned about the commodification of care. In his time, the worry was about the role of the market in extending life. Today, my concern is about the potential role of the market in ending it.”
Many of the opponents’ arguments against this bill are easy for me to dismiss. But I think one they raise would worry me if I were an MP: it’s the widespread leeway given to ministers to change the bill without parliamentary debate—what’s known as the Henry VIII powers.
For me, the debate came to a crescendo with what one former veteran MP later described as one of the best speeches he’s ever heard in the Commons. It came from Dame Siobhain McDonagh, proposing that Henry VIII powers be removed from this bill, which again began with Bevan’s promise that the NHS should “relieve suffering”, “keep very many people alive who might otherwise be dead” and “make a great contribution towards the wellbeing of the common people”: “We have a duty in this place to defend that promise. We cannot allow the promise to be reworded without the full voice of parliament. We owe it to the public, to patients and to the NHS staff who dedicate their lives to this service, to stand firm and protect what is sacred.
“The amendment is simple but its impact is profound. It would ensure that any future changes to the core principles of the NHS must be debated openly, transparently and with the full consent of every Member—no short cuts, no sidestepping, no ministerial overreach. I urge colleagues across the House to support amendment 12, to stand with our NHS and with the people it serves. I urge my side—the Labour side—not to allow the assisted dying bill to be the Trojan Horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure introduced by our party in 120 years.”
Leadbeater has not yet responded to any of this, but we have an interesting few days ahead.
