Assisted Dying: should there be a public consultation?

This is Blog No 86

Two days before the critical Second Reading vote on Assisted Dying and we hear that MPs may have the choice of postponing legislation pending a public consultation. Whilst some have called this a ‘wrecking amendment’, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the extent to which there has been sufficient debate, and this Blog explores the pros and cons of such a move.

The amendment is co-sponsored by three MPs - Ben Spencer, (Conservative), Munira Wilson, (LibDem), and Anna Dixon (Labour) says:-

        “This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because the    

         House’s procedures for the consideration of Private Members’ Bills do not allow for sufficient debate on

         and scrutiny of a Bill on a matter of this importance”.

It also

         “recognises the importance of having a fully-informed debate and vote on assisted dying, which should

          be subsequent to an independent review of and public consultation on the existing law and proposals

         for change”

It also calls for an “independent assessment” of palliative care.

In my view the arguments in favour of the amendment are as follows:.

• In principle, legislation is better if there has been an honest and comprehensive public debate based on the Gunning Principles. In other words, at a formative stage, with the fullest possible information, given enough time and enabling conscientious consideration of its output.
• When proposals are laid out in an Election Manifesto, politicians can claim a degree of public endorsement. MPs rely on this to override opposition from the House of Lords. When, as in this case, it did not form part of a Government programme, there is a stronger case for securing a wider dialogue and testing public opinion. In simple terms, having consultation confers greater legitimacy on controversial legislation.
• Much legislation is technical and affect relatively few ‘stakeholders’. Assisted Dying, however, confers rights potentially on everyone so the public as a whole is more likely to be engaged.
• Despite a Select Committee Report from the last Parliament, there are over 300 brand new MPs, probably still getting to know their constituencies and struggling to engage with sufficient of their electors to gauge public opinion.
• Although there has been much discussion of the principles behind the Bill, much of the devil, as always, lies in the detail. The respected campaigners, LIBERTY (formerly the Nat Council for Civil Liberties) has declared itself in favour of the principle of Assisted Dying but against this particular Bill, mostly because too many of the safeguards are yet to be agreed in sufficient detail to allay the fears of many people including medical and judicial professionals.

 However, there are serious counter-arguments:

• This is a subject of considerable public interest and which, arguably, Parliament has neglected in recent years. Everyone knows that the public is divided, and no Government has the slightest desire to make it a party political issue. Now that the opportunity has arisen to legislate, why delay. Just get on with it and take a decision!
• The amendment suggests a longer delay than is necessary. The assessment of ‘palliative care’ sounds rather like a three-year Royal Commission and many people will see this as politicians yet again and weakly kicking a difficult decision into the long grass.
• Too many public consultations are perceived to be biased and non-inclusive. A consultation on assisted dying at this stage could be deeply divisive and encourage an unhealthy rather than a healthy debate. Do we really want endless media coverage as lobbyists on either side press their case?
• It could easily slip into being a numbers game, and we all know the dangers of a ‘referendum’. Others will argue for a Citizens Assembly process – but maybe that is just a consultation by another name?
• The amendment is a cynical attempt to stop the vote. It is not really about consultation – this is just a pretext to prevent the passage of the Bill
• It is just a tactic by the Bill’s opponents, who fear that it will be approved. They hope that, over time, and as the spectre of re-election grows, that the current fervour for assisted dying will diminish and the chances of reforming the law in this Parliament disappear. It’s Now or Never. (There is only one Esther Rantzen and she would not support any further delay)

If there were to be a public consultation, it has to be very good.

I would prefer it not to be a Government consultation; too many fail the test of best practice. I have long argued that Parliament needs to develop its own capability to run consultations and to have a budget to do so. In this case it would need to subcontract to a reputable specialist firm with an independent overview body to oversee the project. And it would need to be a thorough exercise with plenty of multi-mode opportunities for people to express their opinions. Not a quickie online yes/no survey.

Having been a consistent advocate of public consultation for years, I find it difficult to argue that it should not apply in this case. But I am worried about the reputation of Parliament and the thought that politicians are unwilling to take decisions. To minimise the delay, I would therefore suggest that the consultation be part of an agreed timetable whereby Parliament puts the Bill ‘on ice’ pending a twelve month pause. In other words, ‘stop the clock’ so that a consultation can take place.

Everybody agrees that this is a difficult subject, and for many with personal experience or anxieties, an agonising one.

On balance, a public consultation is the right thing to do.

For more like this - free of charge - click here

Rhion H Jones LL.B