By Diane Abbott and Sir Edward Leigh

On the eve of its Second Reading two years ago, writing from very different political traditions as Mother and Father of the House, we warned against Kim Leadbeater MP’s “dangerous” assisted dying Bill.

Listen to this article

That Bill ultimately proved unable to bear the weight of the scrutiny it was rightly subjected to. Yet we stand once more upon the precipice today. While some facts remain the same, the context into which the new Bill has been introduced has changed, strengthening both our case and our concerns.

What is unchanged? Lauren Edwards’ assisted dying Bill is virtually indistinguishable from the Bill which floundered in the previous parliamentary session as its flaws were repeatedly exposed. Both bills are hampered by unanswered questions, insufficient safeguards, and a reliance on wishful thinking that is disconnected from documented realities. Based on our experience as long-serving MPs, proposals such as this, which lack a rigorous foundation, quickly unravel if they become law. In this instance, the consequences could be disastrous.

What has changed? Quite simply, we know far more now than we did when the previous Bill began its legislative journey. Irrespective of one’s views on reform of the Upper House, our colleagues in the House of Lords indisputably spent considerable time, expertise and energy teasing out the intricacies and real-world impact of the proposed legislation. They did so more effectively than our House’s procedures allowed. Their deliberations revealed a Bill that raised far more questions than it answered.

On........

© LBC