Right decision to put assisted dying bill out of its misery

Some 17 months after MPs first voted to approve assisted dying legislation, its tortuous journey may finally have come to an end. The bill ran out of time in the House of Lords on Friday, meaning that there is no chance of it becoming law in this parliamentary session. It is to be hoped that this marks the end of life for a uniquely poor piece of legislation that has been widely criticised for its sloppy drafting, inadequate scrutiny and potentially fatal consequences.

The House of Lords, which is often criticised for lacking a clear purpose, has proven itself to be an exemplary legislative body in its thorough scrutiny of the assisted dying bill. Peers have tabled more than 1,200 amendments, which detractors claimed were “delaying tactics”. The reality is that they spoke to the fact the bill is not fit for purpose. A litany of evidence has been heard by peers, from the royal colleges to disabled rights campaigners, warning that this legislation was botched.

Yet its advocates are not giving up and hope it will still become law one day soon. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, introduced the legislation as a private member’s bill and may seek to use this route again. After the state opening of parliament on May 13, a ruse is being cooked up by its supporters to secure a high spot on the House of Commons private members' ballot. This would allow the legislation to return. Crucially this “new” bill would apparently not address any of the substantive concerns seen so far, especially when it comes to proper oversight.

Were this to happen, the legislation would encounter the same issue: it is an unworthy bill. If the Lords were to block it once more, which seems likely, there are dark mutterings of wielding the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 to ram it into law. It almost goes without saying this would be a constitutional outrage and should not happen. The likes of Lord Falconer of Thoroton have claimed that the unelected upper chamber has engaged in “pure obstructionism”. He would do well to remind himself that Ms Leadbeater’s legislation was never a government bill and should not be treated as such. Had it been adopted by Sir Keir Starmer, his argument might have some validity.

The whole process of legislating for assisted dying has suffered from the simple fact that this was not a Labour manifesto commitment. The prime minister has indicated his support for the principle, yet has failed to give it proper political backing. Instead, as with much else in his government, he has merely stood on the sidelines.

If the likes of Sir Keir, Ms Leadbeater and Lord Falconer want to see assisted dying legalised, they should have the courage to make it a manifesto commitment. If they secured an electoral mandate for it, a subsequent government would have more of a right to legalise it. It has been wholly disheartening to see how they have sought to introduce such a consequential piece of legislation through the back door.

As this newspaper has long argued, assisted dying would be the most significant act of this parliament, fundamentally changing the relationship between the state and its citizens. The National Health Service exists to protect life, not to help provide the means to end it. This shameful bill has begun to turn opinion against assisted suicide. For the good of all citizens, it is welcome that the perils of bad legislation and a misguided idea have become apparent to all. It should not come back.

Read the Times Leader Comment £ here