I have heard from a number of constituents about the return of an assisted dying Bill to the House of Commons, and I want to set out my position clearly.
I voted against Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at every stage in the House of Commons. I was glad it did not complete its passage through Parliament, and I remain opposed to it now that Lauren Edwards MP has said she will use her Private Members' Bill slot to bring it back for a Second Reading in September.
The debates on this Bill, in both the Commons and the Lords, exposed problems that were never resolved. Amendments designed to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable groups were repeatedly voted down in Committee. That should concern anyone who was told the Bill would be improved as it went through Parliament.
I am particularly troubled by the suggestion that bringing the Bill back is simply picking up where things left off. It is not. After the Commons passed it last June, the Bill went to the Lords for detailed scrutiny, where more than 1,200 amendments were tabled, including 76 amendments by Lord Falconer, the Bill's own sponsor. Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson made the point directly: a bill's sponsor tabling that many amendments to his own legislation is hardly a vote of confidence in its safety. The Bill ran out of parliamentary time in April and fell before those questions were settled.
Ms Edwards has said she intends to bring back exactly the same Bill, not the version shaped by nearly a year of scrutiny in the Lords. If it passes the Commons a second time and the Government relies on the Parliament Act to get it through, the Lords will not be able to amend it further. Parliament would effectively be asked to pass the earlier draft, despite everything raised since by peers, doctors, disability groups and lawyers.
My greatest concern throughout has been the impact on disabled people, and it was one of the main reasons I opposed the Bill from the start. Organisations including Not Dead Yet UK and Disability Rights UK have said consistently that their concerns were not properly addressed as the Bill went through Parliament. I believe they were right to say more should have been done, and that vulnerable people deserve full confidence in any safeguards before legislation like this is passed, not after.
I am hopeful that there has been a shift in the Government's tone. Whilst this remains a backbench Bill, the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has said that palliative care and social care must be properly funded before Parliament returns to this issue. That is a more cautious position than that taken by his predecessor, and I welcome it.
When this Bill returns to the House of Commons, I will vote against it.