Labour has repeatedly stressed that the assisted dying legislation being debated in the House of Lords today is a private members’ bill rather than a Government one. It maintains that the Government is agnostic on the bill’s merits. But does anyone truly believe this stated neutrality? There are many reasons to think otherwise.

Shortly after becoming Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008, Keir Starmer decided not to prosecute the family of a paralysed rugby player who helped him commit suicide. In 2009, he released official guidance on assisted dying which was criticised as overly lenient and an important step to its legalisation. In 2023, as Leader of the Opposition, Starmer said he supported changing the law on assisted dying, and as Prime Minister he has backed the legislation.

Earlier this week, the Guardian reported on leaked documents which showed that Labour advisers were pushing in early 2023 for what would ostensibly be a private members’ bill to legalise assisted dying, but which would actually be Government-backed. The document said that changing the law “polls well, particularly amongst hero voters in areas we must win back, for whom this is particularly prescient (e.g. older demographics with ageing parents who are more likely to experience serious and terminal illness)”.

Naturally, this raises questions about how much Government effort and control has gone into this private members’ bill. A Government bill undergoes an extensive process, which includes approval by the Cabinet as well as extensive public and private consultation both prior to and after the introduction of the bill. It is legislation for which the Government is accountable, politically and morally.

Private members’ bills, on the other hand, are subject to none of these requirements. This is one of the reasons why the Kim Leadbeater-Charlie Falconer assisted dying bill is in such a terrible state, as reflected by the fact that peers so far tabled over a thousand amendments. And because the parliamentary rules with respect to private members’ bills have not been modernised in many years, they receive much less scrutiny — and worse scrutiny at that.

That’s fine if your bill is about something inconsequential, but this is a matter of life and death. By letting Leadbeater ostensibly lead the charge, Starmer has protected himself. If the bill passes and this law more easily facilitates assisted suicide, the PM can take credit by saying there was plenty of parliamentary time for proper scrutiny. If, as is very likely, there are controversial cases where someone has died via assisted suicide under murky circumstances, he can wash his hands of the whole situation and blame Leadbeater. This also allows him to sidestep the substantial opposition within Labour to assisted suicide: 160 Labour MPs voted against the bill at third reading in the House of Commons.

Starmer clearly feels strongly that the law should be changed. The proper thing for him to do would be to change the law through a Government bill. He could also convene a royal commission to produce a bill which Parliament can vote on in a free vote.

By proceeding in this dishonest manner, Starmer — normally a process fetishist — has ignored the normal process and thrown political accountability out the window. The silver lining for the democratic process is that the House of Lords, which by long practice does not reject Government legislation contained in its electoral manifesto, can reject it without being guilty of unconstitutional behaviour.

But the leaked documents are proof that the Labour government — despite many of its MPs being against assisted dying — has never been neutral on this bill. It is yet another policy area, in a long list, where the leadership has failed to level with the public.

---

Yuan Yi Zhu is an academic and writer.

yuanyi_z

---