Assisted dying: why this parliamentary process is the worst way to consider such an important issue

I have no doubt that some will claim Friday’s debate on the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill was “parliament at its best” – it wasn’t. While the bill cleared its second reading with a vote of 330 to 275, it is clear that this entire process is the worst way to consider a social issue of such importance.

This bill has been controversial not just because of the subject matter, but because of the process by which it came to today’s vote. It is a backbench private members’ bill, going through a process that is ill-equipped to deal with such issues – despite some historical precedent.

Sometimes, politicians reach back through history, identify events and circumstances that they think are similar to the situation that they face. They then go on to make the wrong decision based on a misreading of history. It appears the government has done this with assisted dying.

Private members’ bills have been used to make important social changes before, notably on abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s. But the argument that this makes it a valid process today does not withstand much scrutiny.

The context for today’s debate could not be further from that of these two bills. In each case, they were given such a fair wind by the government of the day as to render them effectively quasi-government bills. In fact, the government organised all-night sittings for both bills to ensure progress and ultimate success.

The current government has yet to make clear that there will be any support forthcoming for the assisted dying bill either in terms of support for the policy, or in terms of that crucial parliamentary commodity: time. Time matters because private members’ bills are limited to discussion on 13 Fridays during the year, so do not get as much time for scrutiny and debate as a government bill.

But Roy Jenkins, the home secretary from 1965-67, took a different approach on the aforementioned bills. While the government remained neutral, it would “allow the House to sit for as long as was necessary to get the bills through”.

He also indicated he would support the bills as a member of the government, saying: “While members of the Cabinet would be free to vote against them, I [Jenkins] would be free to speak (and vote, of course) in their favour from the dispatch box and with all the briefing and such authority as I could command as Home Secretary.”

The government could have offered a Jenkins-style strategy for this bill if it were so inclined, but it has chosen not to do so. Despite the apparent sanctity of the process, no-one believes that the bill will get much further without at least some tentative government support, particularly in terms of parliamentary time.

Instead, Keir Starmer appears to have encouraged supporters of assisted dying to pursue this route, based, at least in part, on his own (very limited) experience of the process – and a misreading of history.

In the same way, it is not enough for detractors of the bill such as the father and mother of the house, Edward Leigh and Diane Abbott, to complain about a “rushed process”. The time span offered from publication of the bill to, if it passes, deliberation though all its stages, is not unlike that for most government bills.

There is still plenty of time in the process for a detailed scrutiny of the bill. The Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, pointed out that the third reading would be April 2025 at the earliest, allowing plenty of time for deliberation of the bill in committee.

But she neglected to mention that this could come with a cost. Ultimately, the price could be no progress at all on any of the other private members’ bills under consideration. Only one PMB can be in committee at any given time, so each can only start in committee after the preceding bill has completed its committee stage.

There could be time for both sufficient scrutiny of this bill and a committee stage for other bills, but this is far from clear.

Having made his position clear, there was little surprise when Jenkins and the government effectively facilitated the passage of the two bills in the sixties. It remains difficult to see how this government could suddenly support the bill with parliamentary time especially given the close vote and contentious nature of the bill.

A difficult road ahead

Though it has passed its second reading, this bill faces impediments at every stage in the Commons, and again in the Lords. It is here that PMB Fridays matter. The bill needs to have completed all stages in both houses by the 13th allotted Friday (July 11).

It might, at the very least, need more time allotted by the government at the report and third reading stage. It has a very limited chance of success without this, even if there had been extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The size of today’s majority could afford the government the political space to provide that time – MPs are clearly eager to keep the discussion going.

Without that time, and given the sensitivity of the subject matter, the likely outcome is parliamentary mayhem – rooted in a misunderstanding of the reasons for Jenkins’ successes in the social revolution of the 1960s. This chaos is not what the new Labour government needs, especially in a Commons where over 50% of MPs are new and inexperienced.

A positive outcome from all this would be that the modernisation committee picks up the baton and looks at the whole process of private members bills. This would best sit within a root and branch review of every aspect of how parliament scrutinises government, holds it to account and has a clear route to an efficient process of backbencher inspired legislation.

This article first appeared in 'The Conversation' on 29 November 2024