What is standing in the way of the assisted dying bill becoming law?

Next Friday, 29 November, sees the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – sponsored by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater – which has the potential to be a major piece of social legislation.

Early assumptions that Labour’s overwhelming Commons majority of about 150 would see the private member’s bill go through virtually on the nod have been confounded by an unexpectedly hostile reception, especially within the cabinet, but also among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, albeit with some Conservatives joining the (arguably) “progressive” side of the argument.

As it is a matter of conscience, MPs have been granted a free vote, and this time, for a change, it seems more genuinely so than usual – the party whips don’t seem to be particularly active behind the scenes. There have been some surprise developments, and with so many new members across the House, there is still much to play for...

The mother of the House of Commons, Diane Abbott (a Labour MP, there since 1987), and the father of the House, Edward Leigh (Tory, an MP since 1983), usually diametrically opposed, have published a joint article warning about the effect of the bill on “vulnerable people” and bewailing the lack of time for debate among their less experienced parliamentary colleagues.

One especially sharp sentence reads: “Imagine the pensioner whose children cannot afford houses of their own watching her limited savings, earmarked for those children, disappearing on social care and so feeling a ‘duty to die’.”

In a less surprising intervention, but adding to the resistance, former PM Gordon Brown has pleaded for some sort of “commission” to come up with proposals on palliative care, which is frequently put forward as the obvious alternative to assisted suicide. This would have the effect of defeating the Leadbeater bill. It’s been supported by an opinion poll.

It rather depends on how you ask the question, as is so often the case with “moral” issues. There is much evidence of broad public support for the idea of assisted dying, no doubt driven by compassion, but the arguments are not that well rehearsed, and people’s convictions about the policy could well be superficial. The idea of a “commission”, effectively a delaying tactic by its opponents, also appears to be attractive.

Quite divided, and taking no particular cue from Keir Starmer, who has previously voted for assisted dying and has indicated that he will do so again. Leading the opposition to the bill is the minister most concerned with its application – Wes Streeting, the health secretary. He’s even gone so far as to start work on the costs involved, opening up a new financial front in the debate and earning a mild rebuke from the cabinet secretary, Simon Case (presumably indirectly from Starmer). Streeting’s tactics mean the government might have to breach its neutrality and table a “money resolution”, complicating the bill’s passage.

Otherwise, we currently find Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Peter Kyle, Liz Kendall, Lisa Nandy, Hilary Benn, and (probably) Louise Haigh on the “pro” side; and Bridget Phillipson, Angela Rayner, Shabana Mahmood, Jonathan Reynolds, and (possibly) David Lammy against a change in the law. Rachel Reeves and Steve Reed are prominent “undecideds”.

Yes, but so are all the other major parties, and that’s rather the point of having a free vote. Provided the issue doesn’t leave a great residue of resentment, it should make no difference to the governing party’s ability to run the country. But some senior Labour figures, such as Harriet Harman, are clearly cross with Wes.

One that was conducted a few weeks ago pointed to a narrow majority in favour of changing the law, but there will be some MPs who’ll only make their minds up on the day.

It would be far from over, but encouraging for Leadbeater and her allies. If it gets over this hurdle then it will spend several weeks in a bill committee being amended to make sure it’s as clear and secure as possible, and that should also help to solidify its support. The committee will have plenty of advice and medical MPs on the case.

If all goes well and there are no “wrecking amendments”, then the bill will have a final debate on the report stage and a third reading, which would be more of a formality. Then it will be law, and Streeting, like everyone else, will have to accept it as such, albeit with its “conscience” clause absolving professionals of having to take part in any proceedings they find morally or religiously repugnant.