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
22nd April
Many MPs who are in favour of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill are said to be boiling mad at the possible delay in implementation, which they feel may hole the plan below the water line.
They’ll get their chance to challenge it on 16th May, when the bill returns to the Commons—if they have the courage of their convictions.
What’s making some Labour MPs nervous is that it’s a bit of a mystery why the delay has been introduced, and by whom. Although the amendment was formally moved by Leadbeater herself, it’s pretty clear she’s putting a brave face on it—and swallowing hard, through gritted teeth.
Although she insists that the four years is a backstop, not the actual plan, many MPs worry that the very possibility that it can take four years from the passage of the bill to implementation means it will take four years. The simple pressure of other work may encourage ministers and civil servants progress to proceed at a snail’s pace—after all, we all know the equation where work expands to the maximal deadline. That would scupper the whole thing, because it could put it bang in the centre of the next general election—probably not where the Labour party wants it, as a contentious issue.
Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon has put down an amendment that would cut this to three years, and so avoid that trap. Some of the pro-bill organisations such as My Death, My Decision are supporting him and quoting people such as Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage four breast cancer, who is disgusted with the four year move:
“This is outrageous for terminally ill people like me. Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will. The government needs to stop dragging its feet and act now because the vast majority of the public supports assisted dying. People across the country want this change—so why push it further down the road? We deserve dignity, not delays!”
But before voting for this amendment if it is selected by the speaker, MPs will be asking themselves: if Leadbeater didn’t really want the change, who did?
It seems to be the health department that pushed for it. Apparently, the health minister on the committee, Stephen Kinnock, isn’t enthusiastic. Was it his boss—Wes Streeting—who is opposed to the bill and originally hinted he’s worried about the cost to the NHS?
Or was it simply civil servants, who may have genuinely worried about the time it will take to organise an assisted dying service within the NHS, and paid no heed to the politics of it all?
One usually reliable source claims although Number 10 did know about the amendment, Keir Starmer wasn’t personally aware of it before it was passed. That might give some hopes that even if the amendment isn’t ditched in next month’s vote, the prime minister is now alive to the dangers of running close to the election and so may push for it to be done more quickly.
But all this confusion means that even if Tom Gordon’s amendment is selected by the Speaker, many MPs will be wary of appearing to oppose the government. If this amendment and others are adopted, the bill could be scuppered anyway through lack of time, some experts believe. More on the timetable soon.
