One of the most talked-about and contentious pieces of legislation in Westminster is not a government manifesto pledge, but a backbench bill.
Introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the bill proposes legalising assisted dying in England and Wales and has caused open division between Labour MPs. It is set to have its crucial second reading – its first key test – on Friday November 29 in a free vote. And it is by no means certain to pass it.
The bill has faced intense criticism and debate, not only on policy grounds but also due to the procedure through which it has been introduced. As a private member’s bill – that is, put forward by an individual MP rather than the government – it has not been subject to the same policy processes as a government bill, and faces some limitations on its parliamentary scrutiny.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
This has led to a growing chorus of complaint from MPs and others that the private members’ bill process – more commonly used to approve small and non-contentious bills – is unsuitable for legislation of this significance and complexity.
In an unexpected move, Labour’s Diane Abbott and Conservative Edward Leigh, the mother and father of the house as the longest-serving MPs in parliament, joined forces to oppose the handling of the bill. Despite their very different politics, the two penned a joint letter revealing they were united against what they argue is a “rushed process”.
In truth, some of the comparisons made with government bills have been overstated. But it is nonetheless correct that the private members’ bill process has some limitations, and these may weigh on MPs’ minds as they approach the first vote.
Those worried about the process appear to have two main sets of concerns. The first is that, as a backbench proposal, the bill will not have gone through the same policy processes as government initiatives.
Government legislation typically undergoes various pre-legislative processes that may include policy reviews, public consultation, and cross-departmental signoff. Unless actively supported by the government, most private members’ bills do not feature these steps.
For some, this is the central problem with the bill. The Institute for Government argues that a proposal of this significance should have seen much more thorough preparation. Unlike in some other legislatures (notably the Scottish parliament), there is no expectation in Westminster that backbench bills will be subject to a public consultation. However, in the case of the assisted dying bill, there was a very in-depth inquiry by a House of Commons select committee.
Objections have also been raised about other features, such as the absence of a publicly available impact assessment that details the policy’s likely effects. Despite official guidance indicating that one ought to have been considered within government, it remains unclear whether this has happened.
The absence of such information has given greater prominence to public warnings from the health secretary, Wes Streeting, on the possible financial impact of the policy. Despite an apparent plan for cabinet ministers to keep their views to themselves, Streeting has been strident in his opposition.
The other main procedural complaints concern the parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms. Although private members’ bills go through the same series of legislative stages as government bills, the process is less flexible.
Central to these complaints is the limitation on parliamentary time. There are only 13 Fridays each annual session when private members’ bills are considered on the floor of the House, and there is no mechanism for MPs to decide how to allocate this time between different bills. This means that, on controversial bills such as this, there is no easy way of obtaining additional time if MPs demand it.
Disquiet has particularly centred on the House of Commons “report” stage – one of the key opportunities for MPs to amend the bill. Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke asked for additional government time for this stage in a recent prime minister’s questions, fearing that without it, MPs would be unable “to debate the issues in full”. Starmer rejected the request.
In truth, the bill is likely to have at least as much time for report as most government bills get. But this is not an average bill, and a proposal of this controversy might reasonably be expected to have been allocated more. Notably, in 2013, a government bill to legalise same-sex marriage was given two days. If the assisted dying bill passes second reading, expect more pressure here.
Other concerns have been less persuasive. Fears that the bill’s “committee” stage could be rushed through by its sponsors are unlikely to materialise, and have been dismissed by the government. Another concern raised has been the length of time between the bill’s publication and first vote – although there is no guarantee a government bill would have fared better, as evidenced by some highly controversial government bills.
After all this dispute, the bill’s fate hangs in the balance. According to one tracker, Labour MPs currently lean in favour, though with plenty of undecideds and unknowns. It may be that concerns about the process will form part of their deliberations, although separating concerns about substance and procedure is, in practice, difficult.
Some of the procedural challenges could still be addressed, but would require the government to step in to give the bill more Commons time. If Starmer doesn’t give way on this, there is a risk that MPs may well decide not to proceed further.
Daniel Gover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
