Rutland and StamfordWhere does your constituency stand on assisted dying?

“I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in the context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care. And that’s the way I kind of see this, and that’s the position I will stick to”.

A majority of constituents in Rutland and Stamford back the position the Prime Minister has taken.

61% of constituents in Rutland and Stamford agreed that Parliament should prioritise fixing the NHS and improving palliative, social and end-of-life care before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide.

Only 19% disagreed.

Those voicing concerns about the dozens of serious flaws in the Bill include the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal College of GPs and the Royal College of Nursing; the Association for Palliative Medicine / CLADD Group, the British Geriatrics Society, the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and Care England; a coalition of over 350 disability organisations, Mind, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, Hospice UK and Age UK; the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Children’s Commissioner and The Mental Health and Disability Law Committee; a former Chief Coroner; the former Chief executive of NHS England; a former Chief Nursing Officer; the Chair of the New Zealand Parliament’s Health Committee inquiry into assisted suicide; and disability rights campaigner and former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson.

Lord Falconer, a longstanding supporter of assisted suicide who sponsored Kim Leadbeater’s Bill in the House of Lords during the previous session, also accepted that further changes would be needed to make it safer.

However, for the Parliament Acts route to be used – and the introduction of a near-identical Bill suggests an intention to use this route if Peers feel unable to pass the Bill – these serious flaws could not be addressed by the House of Commons. MPs would instead have to approve, in substance, essentially the same text that emerged from the Commons in the previous session, together with its acknowledged flaws and safety concerns.

A majority of constituents in Rutland and Stamford agree with the experts and want key safeguards added to the Bill that are missing currently

The public in Rutland and Stamford made it clear that there were many concerns and unresolved safeguards in Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying Bill that they would want to be addressed before any such law were to be introduced.

But if the Parliament Acts were to be used, MPs would have to pass essentially the same Bill that left the Commons in 2025, leaving MPs no opportunity to amend the Bill to correct its many flaws.

1. Family notification: In Rutland and Stamford, 66% of the public said that family members and/or next of kin should have the right to be told about a family member’s request to have a doctor assist their suicide. Only 16% disagreed.

   • Under the current Bill, there is no requirement to inform or involve relatives, and no safeguard to ensure families are aware before an assisted suicide takes place, meaning they may only find out afterwards.

2. Patient-led only: In Rutland and Stamford, 71% of the public said that only the patient themselves should be able to raise the option of assisted suicide. Only 10% disagreed.

   • Under the current Bill, a doctor can raise the idea of ending one’s life by assisted dying unprompted / without the patient first asking about it.

3. Domestic abuse protections: In Rutland and Stamford, 84% of the public said that extra care should be taken to protect victims of domestic abuse from being coerced into an assisted death. Only 3% disagreed.

   • While the Bill includes domestic abuse training and coercion offences, it does not create a standalone domestic abuse victim safeguard or bar.
   • An analysis by The Other Half has estimated that 1 in 7 of those who would request an assisted death would be victims of domestic abuse, meaning hundreds of domestic abuse victims could die under the Bill each year.
   • Training on domestic abuse is a weak safeguard, resulting in zero domestic abuse victims being screened out in coercion checks in Western Australia, as we set out in The Other Half’s written evidence to the Commons. Training regarding coercion forms only part of a single module of 40–60 minutes self-guided e-learning.

4. Coroner oversight: In Rutland and Stamford, 66% of the public said coroners, who investigate all unusual deaths, should also be involved in checking all assisted suicides. Only 16% disagreed.

   • The current Bill would amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to ensure there is no statutory duty to investigate deaths “caused by the self-administration by the deceased of an approved substance”. This means that the deaths of those who die by assisted dying would not be automatically referred to a coroner, as is normally required in cases of “unnatural deaths” or deaths caused by the administration of drugs (see Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s1(2)(a)).
   • Experts have shared their concerns that a lack of coroner oversight in the Bill risks hiding unlawful deaths or abuses.
   • It is thanks to the work of coroners that we understand that suicide may be the cause of more deaths of domestic abuse victims than homicides, with the Crown Prosecution Service now prosecuting men whom it believes may have coerced their partners into suicides.
   • Coroners and assisted dying campaigners have long had an adversarial relationship. Only by chance did a coronial inquest lead to an investigation into Nicholas Reed, the leader of one British assisted dying campaign, who was investigated for being involved in up to 250 deaths. He, and the janitor of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now known as Dignity in Dying), were subsequently convicted in three and six cases respectively, mostly in relation to the deaths of disabled women.

5. Universal palliative care first: In Rutland and Stamford, 63% of the public said universal end-of-life care should be introduced before assisted suicide is legalised. Only 14% disagreed.

   • Under the current Bill, such care is not a precondition for legalisation.

Keeping the Parliament Acts route available depends on bringing the Bill back and then sending it to the Lords in substantially the same form. It would also leave MPs unable to amend the current text to correct the dozens of serious defects already placed on the public record.

At Second Reading, on 11 September, MPs will therefore be deciding not only whether to approve a Bill that remains unsafe and seriously defective, but also whether the Parliament Acts should be used for a controversial Private Members’ Bill that the Bill’s sponsor is not willing to let MPs amend. That is a materially different question from the one before the Commons at the Second Reading of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying Bill.

Each of the seven uses of the Parliament Acts since 1911 has involved Government legislation. The Parliament Acts have never been applied to a Private Members’ Bill such as Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill.

Using the Acts with regard to this Bill would be novel and risk an unwelcome and highly contentious precedent: assisted dying was not included in the Government’s manifesto, the Bill only passed the Commons by a narrow margin, and it was supported by fewer than half of all MPs at Third Reading.

In a recent editorial, The Times labelled the proposed use of the Parliament Acts with regard to the assisted dying Bill as “a constitutional outrage” and “unconscionable”.

The Committee concluded that it was “constitutionally appropriate” for peers to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill.

A recent Times leader said the Lords’ “detailed scrutiny” of the earlier Bill had done “the country a service”.

Supporters of introducing assisted dying have disparaged that scrutiny and argued that a small group of peers obstructed the Bill, using that account to justify reintroducing it. In fact, more than 140 peers, including leading specialists, actively opposed the Bill. A House of Lords select committee also heard wide-ranging and significant concerns from numerous Royal Colleges, professional bodies and organisations representing people who could be put at risk.