A Conservative MP has urged colleagues not to use the new parliamentary session to revive Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide legislation, arguing that Parliament should instead focus on strengthening palliative care and addressing other pressing social issues.
John Cooper, MP for Dumfries and Galloway, made the comments in an article for The House Magazine, as MPs prepare for the latest Private Members’ Bill ballot.
The ballot gives backbench MPs the chance to introduce legislation, but Cooper said it would be wrong for the process to be used again for a proposal dealing with “life and death”.
His comments come after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament earlier this year.
Although it passed in the House of Commons, it ran out of time in the House of Lords following extensive scrutiny and growing concerns over safeguards for vulnerable people and the practicalities of creating an assisted suicide service.
Over 1,200 amendments were put forward during its consideration by peers, making it one of the most heavily amended private members’ bills in recent history.
As such, Cooper labelled it “a Frankenstein bill.”
Critics warned that elderly, disabled, mentally ill and vulnerable people could be placed at risk, particularly those facing domestic abuse, financial pressure or a fear of becoming a burden.
Leadbeater is reportedly keen for other MPs to take up the legislation and continue its progress.
However, Cooper argued that lawmakers already spent more than a year attempting to address flaws in the proposal and had failed to produce a “workable” framework.
The serious questions that remained unresolved included how the service would operate, what drugs would be used, what would happen if a procedure did not go as planned, and how the law would interact with devolved healthcare systems in Scotland and Wales.
“Even those who support assisted dying in principle should recognise this particular bill is fundamentally flawed and not a public priority,” he wrote.
He questioned whether a measure of such significance should be advanced simply because it offers the quickest legislative route.
Cooper also rejected criticism of the House of Lords “being undemocratic,” saying peers had been doing their duty by examining a bill that was not included in any major party manifesto.
He wrote: “There is no democratic mandate. Legislators are not sent to Westminster to rubber-stamp flawed laws out of sympathy for the effort that went into drafting them. We are sent to scrutinise legislation properly, identify dangers and weaknesses, and reject it where necessary.
“As legislators, we cannot simply refuse to grapple with the complex and inconvenient truths that accompany such a profound change in the relationship between the state, society and the individual.”
Christian campaigners welcomed the bill’s collapse while warning that the debate is likely to return.
They have argued that public policy should prioritise compassionate care rather than assisted suicide.
Writing for Premier Christianity, Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron argued that although many people support assisted dying in principle, the challenge lies in producing legislation that is both “safe” and “workable.”
He noted that opposition to the bill includes medical experts and disability advocates as well as faith groups and warned that no law of this kind can entirely remove the risks of coercion or unforeseen consequences.
Farron added that Christian concerns are grounded in the belief that every person is made in the image of God and therefore possesses inherent dignity, especially those who are vulnerable or at risk of pressure from others.
Similarly, director of advocacy and policy at Christian organisation CARE, Caroline Ansell, previously said the appropriate response to suffering is to ensure access to high-quality health, social and palliative care, reflecting the Christian belief that every person possesses inherent dignity as one made in the image of God.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, who sat on a Select Committee examining the bill, defended the Lords’ intense scrutiny, saying that when questions of life, dignity, death and conscience are involved, careful examination is a “moral necessity.”
Recent polling by Whitestone Insight suggested that support for the legislation among MPs weakened following the original Commons vote.
According to the survey, 45% of MPs questioned said they would vote against the bill if it returned, compared with 41% who said they would support it.
Right to Life UK has highlighted that several MPs who previously backed the legislation have also expressed opposition to suggestions that the Parliament Acts could be used to bypass the House of Lords if the bill were reintroduced.
CEO of Right to Life UK, Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, said: “Using the Parliament Acts to force through a controversial Private Members’ Bill that was not in the Government’s election manifesto would be unprecedented and unacceptable.
“In light of the current political climate and splits in the Labour Party, it would be deeply misguided for any MP to bring back the Bill, which would merely create further division and distract both the Government and Parliament from the very real challenges facing our country.”
Cooper concluded by urging MPs to use the Private Members’ Bill process to tackle issues such as uneven access to palliative care, support for young women with eating disorders, and fortified protections for elderly and disabled people who may be at risk of abuse or coercion, rather than reopening a debate that has already consumed significant parliamentary time.
“It is incumbent upon MPs of all parties to take the initiative and use the process to introduce positive, constructive legislation that addresses the real issues people face in their everyday lives,” he wrote.
“Not every MP will become a minister and enact change through government, but every MP has the opportunity to contribute something worthwhile through this process. Let us do that.”
