Against a parliamentary device to enable assisted dying

I wanted to speak in the House of Lords debate on 16 March against an amendment which would have forced the Government to introduce a Bill to enable assisted dying, but there was insufficient time. This is what I would have said. The amendment was defeated by 179 votes to 145.

My Lords, I am a novice in your Lordship’s House, and so rise with some hesitation and due deference to those whose experience makes them far more expert on parliamentary procedure.

It seems to me that we face two conflicting arguments about the amendment.  One is that it is not about the principle of assisted dying at all.  It merely facilitates further legislation.  This argument is made especially by those who favour assisted dying.

The other argument is that the amendment is indeed about assisted dying.  And it seems to me that it is.  Because if we require the Government to bring in a Bill, albeit in draft, to legalise assisted dying, *of course* we set in train the process.  We cannot really then say, “oh, but this would only be a draft Bill”.  And I wonder if the proponents of assisted dying can credibly claim that they would let a draft Bill rest. 

I have difficulty with the claim that this amendment has “nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of assisted dying”. Of course it has something to do with that issue.

I have the very greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but I have difficulty with his claim, on moving his amendment, that it has “nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of assisted dying”.  Of course it has something to do with that issue.  It mandates the Government to introduce a Bill to permit people to end their lives.  Saying that this amendment has nothing to do with the principle is like claiming that you are buying a car for the sole purpose of leaving it in the garage.  Noble Lords, if they are open, intend to drive until they have reached their destination.

If my noble friend is right that his amendment has nothing to do with with assisted dying, but is only a procedural vehicle, then the Government is surely entirely within its rights to argue that the amendment should be rejected on procedural grounds.

But the truth is that most of us are here because we take one view or the other on the substantive issue.  My noble friend is not neutral.  Neither am I.  I will oppose the amendment for that reason alone.  But there is a legitimate wider concern.

I was in the House of Commons when backbenchers sought to wrest control of the legislative process from the Government because they believed powerfully that the end justified the means, in that case to oppose Brexit.  I objected to the attempt, despite having opposed Brexit in the referendum, not only because I thought we should respect the result of the referendum, but also because it seemed to me that it is fundamental to our constitutional settlement that the elected government of the day should be able to determine parliamentary business.  That is why people elect governments.  Seizing control of  Government business on one issue, on one day, however important, however strongly we may feel about it, undermines that settlement.  Many of the proponents of this amendment saw this point in relation to Brexit.  Yet they do not see it now.

I remain an opponent of assisted dying.  I genuinely respect the sincerely held view of noble Lords and others outside this House who differ.  But it seems to me that this amendment represents the worst of all worlds.  Passing it will be held by some as merely enabling further debate, but by others as having established the principle that assisted dying must be legalised.  Unlike the Bill we considered previously, the amendment sets no limits on that principle.  With one sudden leap, through one mere amendment, the rubicon will have been crossed.

And that, I think, is precisely what the proponents of the amendment intend.  Noble Lords may claim there is nothing to see here.  But their ambition is in plain sight.  I accept that this is an important issue that we should debate and we will need to decide, but my Lords, not by way of a device.  Not by way of a clever procedural wrench.  Not on an issue of this magnitude.  Whatever our view on the rights and wrongs of assisted dying, it is surely too important for this.

You can read the debate here.