Miriam Cates is the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
As a general rule, the parliamentary timetable is controlled by the government of the day, making it virtually impossible for individual MPs to make new laws. Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) are the exception to this rule and, since their invention in the 19th Century, have been used by backbenchers to introduce all sorts of legislation that would otherwise never have seen the light of day.
PMBs are normally niche in nature, addressing issues of personal interest to particular MPs, such as the Shark Fins Act (2023) or the Coinage (Measurement) Act (2011). PMBs are expected to be narrow in scope, since they qualify for far less parliamentary time and therefore significantly less scrutiny than government bills. Debated on Fridays – when MPs are routinely engaged in constituency business – PMBs can easily be blocked by the Government, and fewer than one in 20 makes it onto the statute book.
Lacking civil service support and forbidden from increasing public spending, PMBs are suited to the introduction of legal ‘tweaks’ rather than wholesale reform. Nevertheless, the lightweight nature of the PMB process has, on a number of occasions, been hijacked to introduce radical legal change with little scrutiny.
PMBs offer plausible deniability to governments who seek to undermine social norms but want to avoid being held responsible for the consequences. The Abortion Act 1967 is a prime example: supporters of the Bill promised that terminations would be rare, but Britain has been left with one of the most extreme abortion regimes in the West, with over 250,000 procedures each year.
Private members bills were also used to abolish the death penalty (1965) and legalise same-sex marriage (2013). Whether or not one supports these liberalisations, it is concerning that such extensive social change can be introduced with so little democratic scrutiny and without any political major party – or its leaders – being forced to take responsibility for the reform.
Today we are witnessing the latest attempt to drive significant social change through the back door via a PMB. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is disingenuously referred to by its proponents as the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’; but this is inaccurate, since we already have assisted dying – in the form of palliative care. What is being proposed is state-enabled suicide.
As is now customary for these Trojan Horse laws, supporters have assured the public that the legislation is limited in scope, includes watertight safeguards for the vulnerable and will apply only in limited circumstances. Yet, no doubt conscious that these commitments are about as reliable as a chocolate teapot, the Bill’s backers have abused parliamentary procedure from the very beginning of the process to keep scrutiny to a minimum.
The assisted suicide bill was published just 18 days before the first debate, giving MPs and lawyers scant opportunity to assess its potential impact. The public was told that the requirement for a High Court judge to sign off requests for assisted death would make the Bill the safest in the world, yet this so-called safeguard has now been dropped.
Kim Leadbeater MP, the Bill’s sponsor, stacked the scrutiny committee with supportive MPs. The selection of witnesses called was almost comically biased in favour of the Bill. Suspiciously, no expert from Canada was interviewed, despite this being the jurisdiction most culturally and legally similar to the UK, and where assisted suicide now accounts for one in twenty of all deaths, including the deaths of those who cite ‘poverty’ and as many 71 people who died by MAID in Canada in 2023 self-identified as having a learning disability”. .
In accordance with the PMB process, the government impact assessment for the Bill was not published until after the first Parliamentary debate. This meant MPs were not aware, for example, of the potential consequences of the requirement to shift resources away from NHS services to set up a state suicide service.
Even when Leadbeater has been compelled to concede truths about the Bill – such as the fact that there is no requirement for applicants to be in pain, or that ‘feeling a burden’ will be a sufficient reason for death – the majority of parliamentarians remain unaware of the revelation, since just 3.5 per cent of MPs sat on the committee.
Last week’s report stage of the bill, conducted in the main chamber of the House of Commons, demonstrated the inadequacy of PMBs as a vehicle for introducing major legislation. More than 90 backbench MPs requested to speak. Just 26 were able to do so, and many for just five minutes apiece.
Leadbeater made all sorts of unsubstantiated claims that could not be challenged on the floor of the House, such as the factually incorrect insinuation that the Royal College of Psychiatrists are not opposed to her Bill (the College is opposed to her Bill).
Due to the severe time restrictions, just one of the proposed amendments was subjected to a parliamentary vote. And extraordinarily – but consistent with the tactics of the pro-suicide lobby throughout – Leadbeater and her allies forced a complete shut-down of the debate at 2pm.
If one wanted to design a process that would enable the introduction of extreme social reforms without democratic consent or scrutiny, it would be hard to improve on the Private Members Bill. Members of Parliament, the supposed guardians of democracy, have the perfect excuse not to engage or even vote on such legislation, since they are legitimately occupied in their constituencies on Fridays.
Whether the Leadbeater bill is ultimately defeated or passes into law, once the process is concluded, Parliament should review the scope of PMBs.
But while the assisted suicide bill is still live, the priority for Members of Parliament must be to examine their consciences before the next vote. Given the trajectory of assisted suicide services in other countries, there is no doubt that the Leadbeater Bill would result in the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people, and eventually the poor, the lonely and the young.
As elected representatives, are MPs willing to be responsible for opening the door to such a substantial devaluing of human life after such a deficient process of scrutiny? Are they willing to undermine the founding, life-saving principles of the NHS?
If there was ever a time for conscience to trump convenience, it must be now.
