Skip to content

Tom Hunt: Why I still believe assisted suicide will not happen in the UK | Conservative Home

    Tom Hunt is the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Ipswich and previously a councillor on East Cambridgeshire District Council.

    A few months ago, I concluded that I did not believe Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill would become law.

    I wasn’t sure quite what would prove the death-knell for her Bill, but I just felt certain there would be one.

    Clearly, we now know that Third Reading in the Commons wasn’t its defeat, following the Bill’s narrow passage on Friday 20th June. However, I haven’t seen anything yet that has led me to revise my prediction.

    I have had a lot of conversations with people since the Third Reading vote, and I still can’t find a historical precedent where support for a Private Members’ Bill has fallen so dramatically between Second and Third Reading. At Second Reading, Leadbeater achieved a majority of 55 for her Bill. Well over half of this majority (58 per cent if we are being precise) was wiped out at Third Reading, as her majority was cut to just 23. What is more, Leadbeater lost her absolute majority in the Commons. Taking into account all the MPs who could not vote on the measure at Third Reading (Speakers, Deputy Speakers, etc.), an absolute majority in the Commons would have been 318 votes. Leadbeater fell short of this magic number. The result was a 52/48 per cent split amongst MPs. A ratio many readers will find familiar!

    When you compare the majority Leadbeater achieved with the majority secured for other significant social changes, the differences are stark. For example, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 secured a Third Reading majority of 205 , the Civil Partnership Act 2004 a majority of 391 and. the Abortion Act 1967 had a  Third Reading majority of 84 – with, 67 per cent of MPs voting in favour and 33 per cent against.

    Yes, the Leadbeater Bill just about passed its Third Reading, but it is limping its way to the Lords, wounded and lacking momentum.

    Predictably, a debate has immediately begun about whether or not it would be legitimate for the House of Lords to amend, frustrate, or vote against this flawed Bill. Lord Falconer, who has assumed the responsibility for leading the Bill through the Lords, has made clear in the media that he does not believe it would be legitimate for the Lords to vote down the Bill. He says this despite the fact that he has a history of voting down a range of Bills in the Lords that have passed more comfortably than Leadbeater’s Bills in the Commons.

    On the other hand, constitutional experts such as Professor Mark ElliottProfessor Philip Murray and Nikki da Costa have made it clear that the House of Lords is well within its rights to vote down the Leadbeater Bill, and indeed to do so would accord with its constitutional duty to advise the Commons and ensure proper scrutiny which results in good law. And, whatever your view on the principle, the Leadbeater Bill is not good law.

    The Leadbeater Bill touches very directly upon the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, if passed into law, it would pose a significant danger to many of them. There have been a number of procedural issues with the Bill, that have fallen short of the standards, I imagine, many Peers would have hoped for when it comes to a Bill of this significance.

    And as already stated, it passes to the Lords without an absolute majority in the Commons and having had its majority eroded significantly between Second and Third Reading. Moreover, the Bill is not covered by the Salisbury Convention as it is not a Government Bill and wasn’t mentioned in any party’s manifesto at the last General Election.

    Ultimately, bearing all of this in mind, if the majority of Peers, who by and large have far more experience and expertise (as well as, perhaps, wisdom) than many of the current crop of MPs, come to the conclusion that this Bill is dangerous and beyond reform, not only would it be within their right to vote the Bill down but it would also be their duty.

    This has now become a political problem for the Prime Minister.

    Overall, 160 Labour MPs voted against the Leadbeater Bill, and a number of notable high-profile Labour Peers lie in wait in the Lords who are on record as being against the Bill. It was interesting to see how many of the Labour MPs who opposed the Leadbeater Bill also signed the recent amendment opposing the Government’s Welfare Bill. It has recently been stated that assisted suicide may have become Labour’s version of Brexit.

    Related to this, it was also interesting to see the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, being so pointed and strong in his opposition to the Bill even after it had passed its Third Reading. Reading between the lines, one certainly gets the sense that the Health Secretary believes that, even at this stage, there remains a good chance that this Bill never becomes law.

    Even if the Bill were to get through the Lords, bearing in mind the now 4-year implementation period to set up the assisted suicide system, which runs right up to, or perhaps even beyond, the next General Election, there are additional political hurdles it will need to overcome.

    In the Mail on Sunday, following the Third Reading vote, there was a headline about how Reform UK is expected to commit to repealing the legislation if it were to secure power. Bearing in mind that, of those who voted, 82% of Conservative MPs opposed the Leadbeater Bill, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Conservative Party makes a similar commitment.

    Given the composition of the current House of Commons, it is reasonable to argue that this moment in time is uniquely favourable for those looking to introduce assisted suicide. This is surely one of the reasons why assisted suicide campaigners picked their moment. Yet even so, it has only just squeezed through the Commons. Whatever happens at the next General Election, the next Parliament is almost certain to be less favourable to the pro-assisted suicide lobby, and I would put my money on a decent majority of the MPs voting down the Leadbeater Bill before it’s enacted, if given the opportunity.

    There is no inevitability about the Leadbeater Bill becoming law, far from it. If I were a betting man, my money would still be on this dangerous Bill falling before its final hurdle.

    conservativehome.com (Article Sourced Website)

    #Tom #Hunt #assisted #suicide #happen #Conservative #Home