More on Assisted Death
I’ve written about assisted dying in this column on several occasions over the years:
Esther Rantzen (desmondswaynemp.com)
Assisting Suicide (desmondswaynemp.com)
Assisted Dying -Again (desmondswaynemp.com)
Bob Marris MP’s Assisted Dying Bill (desmondswaynemp.com)
I’ve also debated the subject in Parliament, in our great universities, and with constituents. I revisit it again for two reasons. First, the Commons Health select Committee, after a thorough inquiry has produced a thoughtful and very balanced report on the question which can be found at
Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide (parliament.uk)
Second, because the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, has announced that he will let Parliament vote on the matter.
But Parliament does not need his consent or permission; Both Houses have mechanisms to secure a vote, when they want it.
In the Commons we last voted on it in September 2015, then we rejected the proposal to legalise it by 330 votes to 118.
That opportunity arose on a private member’s bill. Had there been sufficient appetite for a re-match, another private member’s bill could have been presented; Or, alternatively, an amendment could have been tabled to a suitable Government bill. Another option would have been a division under the ‘ten-minute rule’ procedure -often a very useful test of the opinion within the House. Indeed, there is nothing to stop Sir Kier giving one of his Opposition days over to a motion on the subject. Or the back- bench Business Committee could schedule a motion for decision.
The point is that Parliament does not have to wait on the Government in order to debate and vote on questions that it considers important.
Of course, were a vote supporting a change in the law to be successful, then Government time and co-operation would be required, in spades, in order to get the detailed legislation through. I’m certain that there is no Government enthusiasm for to giving up such time and effort to this complex problem, at an inevitable cost to its other legislative priorities.
Equally, notwithstanding the apparent public support for changing the law, I suspect that most parliamentary colleagues, recognising the difficulties that such an enormous change would represent, and seeing the experience of those jurisdictions that have embraced it, themselves shrink from it.