Jack Rankin is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Windsor
Last Thursday, the Private Members’ Bill ballot took place, giving twenty lucky backbench MPs the chance to introduce their own piece of legislation to the House of Commons. This is generally no more than an interesting piece of theatre, but this year’s draw carried additional weight because it could well be used to revive the Assisted Suicide Bill. Of the first seven MPs drawn (guaranteed a day’s debate on their Bill), four previously backed the Assisted Suicide Bill, which should be deeply concerning for its opponents.
At the conclusion of the previous parliamentary session, the flawed assisted suicide Bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP fell, having run out of time in the House of Lords and therefore failing to pass all necessary parliamentary stages. Since then, and indeed long before, as the inevitability of this had been clear for some time, the focus of assisted suicide lobby groups – along with their allies in Westminster – has been readily apparent: reintroduce the Bill by any means necessary.
Rather than recognise the inherent failings of the Bill, the pro-lobby aims to force it onto the statute book through the use of the Parliament Acts. Meaning without the consent of the House of Lords and without the more comprehensive scrutiny the Upper House provides. Not only does this mean this inherently flawed Bill would be shunted through, but it would also likely be the worst possible version.
Since the start of the new session on 13 May, my inbox, and that of many of my colleagues in Parliament, has been full of constituents expressing their deepest concerns, not just with the Bill itself but the way in which its supporters in Parliament seem happy to cast aside any criticism, to bring it back in its original form.
To outsiders, this may sound technical and unremarkable, but it is important to understand just how bizarre and harmful such a move would be. The Parliament Acts have resulted in Bills becoming law just seven times since the original Act was passed 115 years ago, following the Lords’ protest against the Liberal Government’s budget.
The Parliament Acts have never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Such a move would throw into the air the constitutional conventions on which Parliament is built. This is extraordinary in and of itself, but to attempt to use them for a piece of legislation that has been so contentious and passed the Commons by the slimmest of margins begins to look like desperation and an act of ideological zealotry, rather than a measured attempt to address a perceived policy need. Leadbeater’s Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of just 23 MPs at Third Reading. It was also nowhere to be seen in Labour’s manifesto at the 2024 General Election.
Forensic and brilliant dismantling of the Bill has been undertaken on this site and elsewhere, so I won’t rehearse those arguments here. No doubt there are people in and outside of politics who earnestly believe legalising assisted suicide to be the right way forward, just as there are those who take an opposing view – indeed, I have met with constituents on both sides of this debate. However, I would contend that forcing the Bill through is a wholly inappropriate response to reasoned disagreement. It is certainly not the way our democracy ought to be exercised.
As an aside, it concerns me that public trust in politics is historically low. The machinations of pro-assisted suicide zealots will not help. A More In Common poll conducted this February concluded that 54% of the public polled thought the Bill should either not return at all, or should have to pass both Houses of Parliament again. Fewer than half of the respondents thought the Bill should bypass the Lords regardless. Last month, over half (61 per cent) of respondents to a JL Partners poll stated that they believed important bills should go through a full Government consultation and expert scrutiny before Parliament votes on them.
Supporters of assisted suicide love to claim that the public backs their Bill, but they clearly aren’t listening. The public doesn’t want this Bill to return, and they certainly don’t want it to return in this way. It would only add to the woes of a stagnant economy and a lame duck Prime Minister, although perhaps for Starmer, who backed the Bill, it may provide a convenient distraction.
History has demonstrated the fragility of democracy, making it essential to protect the principles that support it. When your particular politics begins to see principles as obstacles rather than protections, and critics as enemies to be opposed en masse rather than an opportunity to listen respectfully and refine thinking, you begin down a very dangerous path indeed. Proponents of the assisted suicide Bill may be well-intentioned, but even the best intentions can lead to ruinous outcomes. This Bill should be left in the previous session, where it belongs.
Jack Rankin is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Windsor
Last Thursday, the Private Members’ Bill ballot took place, giving twenty lucky backbench MPs the chance to introduce their own piece of legislation to the House of Commons. This is generally no more than an interesting piece of theatre, but this year’s draw carried additional weight because it could well be used to revive the Assisted Suicide Bill. Of the first seven MPs drawn (guaranteed a day’s debate on their Bill), four previously backed the Assisted Suicide Bill, which should be deeply concerning for its opponents.
At the conclusion of the previous parliamentary session, the flawed assisted suicide Bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP fell, having run out of time in the House of Lords and therefore failing to pass all necessary parliamentary stages. Since then, and indeed long before, as the inevitability of this had been clear for some time, the focus of assisted suicide lobby groups – along with their allies in Westminster – has been readily apparent: reintroduce the Bill by any means necessary.
Rather than recognise the inherent failings of the Bill, the pro-lobby aims to force it onto the statute book through the use of the Parliament Acts. Meaning without the consent of the House of Lords and without the more comprehensive scrutiny the Upper House provides. Not only does this mean this inherently flawed Bill would be shunted through, but it would also likely be the worst possible version.
Since the start of the new session on 13 May, my inbox, and that of many of my colleagues in Parliament, has been full of constituents expressing their deepest concerns, not just with the Bill itself but the way in which its supporters in Parliament seem happy to cast aside any criticism, to bring it back in its original form.
To outsiders, this may sound technical and unremarkable, but it is important to understand just how bizarre and harmful such a move would be. The Parliament Acts have resulted in Bills becoming law just seven times since the original Act was passed 115 years ago, following the Lords’ protest against the Liberal Government’s budget.
The Parliament Acts have never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Such a move would throw into the air the constitutional conventions on which Parliament is built. This is extraordinary in and of itself, but to attempt to use them for a piece of legislation that has been so contentious and passed the Commons by the slimmest of margins begins to look like desperation and an act of ideological zealotry, rather than a measured attempt to address a perceived policy need. Leadbeater’s Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of just 23 MPs at Third Reading. It was also nowhere to be seen in Labour’s manifesto at the 2024 General Election.
Forensic and brilliant dismantling of the Bill has been undertaken on this site and elsewhere, so I won’t rehearse those arguments here. No doubt there are people in and outside of politics who earnestly believe legalising assisted suicide to be the right way forward, just as there are those who take an opposing view – indeed, I have met with constituents on both sides of this debate. However, I would contend that forcing the Bill through is a wholly inappropriate response to reasoned disagreement. It is certainly not the way our democracy ought to be exercised.
As an aside, it concerns me that public trust in politics is historically low. The machinations of pro-assisted suicide zealots will not help. A More In Common poll conducted this February concluded that 54% of the public polled thought the Bill should either not return at all, or should have to pass both Houses of Parliament again. Fewer than half of the respondents thought the Bill should bypass the Lords regardless. Last month, over half (61 per cent) of respondents to a JL Partners poll stated that they believed important bills should go through a full Government consultation and expert scrutiny before Parliament votes on them.
Supporters of assisted suicide love to claim that the public backs their Bill, but they clearly aren’t listening. The public doesn’t want this Bill to return, and they certainly don’t want it to return in this way. It would only add to the woes of a stagnant economy and a lame duck Prime Minister, although perhaps for Starmer, who backed the Bill, it may provide a convenient distraction.
History has demonstrated the fragility of democracy, making it essential to protect the principles that support it. When your particular politics begins to see principles as obstacles rather than protections, and critics as enemies to be opposed en masse rather than an opportunity to listen respectfully and refine thinking, you begin down a very dangerous path indeed. Proponents of the assisted suicide Bill may be well-intentioned, but even the best intentions can lead to ruinous outcomes. This Bill should be left in the previous session, where it belongs.