Julian Smith: Assisted Dying is far too serious for a Private Member’s Bill

Julian Smith is the Conservative MP for Skipton and Ripon and a former Government Chief Whip

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill may have fallen, but the campaign to introduce assisted dying through the back door of a private members’ bill has not. With a new Private Members Bill (PMB) ballot approaching, MPs that are successful must think very carefully about what they want to achieve. To reintroduce an identical assisted dying bill, and use the Parliament Acts to force it through, would be both dangerous and divisive. 

As Government Chief Whip between 2017 and 2019, I sat at the centre of the most turbulent parliamentary period in living memory. I know how legislation can fail under the weight of insufficient preparation. I saw what happens when Parliament moves faster than the evidence, and when the consequences of getting things wrong are treated as a secondary concern. On the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the process failed completely.

A private members’ bill was never the right vehicle for one of the most profound shifts in the relationship between patient, doctor and state that this country has ever contemplated. I know this from experience, not theory. When in Government, I saw how government bills – with all the accompanying impact assessments, pre-legislative scrutiny, and departmental expertise that entails – still struggled to anticipate every consequence. A private members’ bill on such a complex issue as assisted dying, brought forward without a government mandate and without the full infrastructure of proper due diligence, simply cannot bear that weight.

If the Government wishes to legislate on assisted dying, it should stand on a manifesto commitment, seek a public mandate, and bring forward primary legislation with the scrutiny such a change demands. What we saw in the previous parliamentary session was MPs asked to vote on a principle at Second Reading and told the details would somehow be worked out along the way. That is not how you make law. That is how you make mistakes.

The Bill contained 42 delegated powers – 42 areas in which ministers would fill in the substance of the legislation after the fact, beyond the reach of proper parliamentary debate. The most fundamental clinical and ethical questions about how assisted dying would work in practice were left entirely unanswered. Not a single Royal College supported it. Disability charities, palliative care specialists, and safeguarding organisations raised concern after concern. Peers in the Lords, who were promised the opportunity to refine the detail and relied upon to ‘tidy up the Bill’, now find themselves threatened with the Parliament Acts for daring to do their job.

As the Private Members’ Bill ballot takes place, I would urge MPs considering taking on such a bill, or lending it their support, to think carefully about what they would actually be signing up to. Not the principle in the abstract, but the reality of legislation that would fundamentally alter the role of the NHS, the medical profession, and the state in the final moments of people’s lives – brought forward without a mandate, without proper scrutiny, and without the safeguards our most vulnerable constituents deserve.

In Skipton and Ripon, I have heard from constituents on both sides of this debate. I respect those who support assisted dying in principle. Their voices matter, and this is not an issue anyone approaches lightly. I have also heard from healthcare workers worried about the pressure this legislation could place on patients who fear being a burden. From families who want assurance – assurance that was never forthcoming – that isolated and at-risk individuals would genuinely be protected.

Opposing this Bill has never been about opposing compassion. It has been about insisting that compassion for those that want this option is not enough; we must also think of those that may be given little choice. In terms of process and scrutiny, proper legislation must come first.

We should not allow the Private Members’ Bill process to be used again for such a profound, complex and significant change to our national life.