The decision facing MPs on Friday

On Friday, MPs must decide whether they support the Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide Bill*.

They are not voting on whether they agree with the principle, but on the specific proposals written on the face of the bill. Would they in good conscience be happy for this bill to proceed, in this way, and reach the statute books?

The responsibility weighs heavy because MPs are in a very difficult, if not impossible position - they are going in blind, in a way they are unlikely to be asked to do ever again.

If this were a government bill or if normal process for a private members bill had been followed, the Health Secretary and Justice Secretary would be closely involved in understanding what it would mean for the National Health Service and the High Courts.

The Treasury would be consulted on the cost implications and how those could be paid for or if it would have to come from cuts elsewhere.

The Law Officers would consider the human rights impacts and legal implications and interactions with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Senior judges, chief medical officers, palliative care doctors, GPs and those representing vulnerable groups would be consulted. And all this work would culminate in an impact assessment publicly available, with ministers equipped to answer MPs questions on how things would work in practice.

But, in this case, civil servants have been told not to do this work, and the bill has been drafted by the sponsoring MP and campaigners, who are not equipped to do this work even if they wanted to.

There have been no attempts to prepare the ground before introducing the bill. The comparable Abortion Act of the 1960s saw substantive work undertaken, with Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College and British Medical Association given time to intervene, and a committee established to advise the government on the bill. Substantial changes were made as a result.

This entire pre-legislative stage has been skipped, and MPs have been given just two and a half weeks to look at the detail.

Nor are MPs prepared for the inadequacies of the Private Members Bill process: a maximum of five hours debate at second reading, a committee stage where no oral or written evidence is permitted, and where the bill sponsor nominates all members and will have a controlling majority when it comes to votes on amendments, a report stage where only some amendments will be selected by the Speaker for debate and vote, and a second house that by convention is hands-off.

Some of these deficiencies could be remedied by the Government but so far it is holding firm.

It’s why, typically, bills of this kind are short bills which are neither particularly complex nor controversial – because they won’t be subject to anything like the level of scrutiny that an equivalent Government Bill would face. ?

There is also an huge incentive to curtail debate and not propose amendments in pursuit of getting the bill on to the statute books; the legislative process for Private Members Bills is limited by a very insistent clock and if the bill does not complete its passage before the prescribed time for Private Members Bills has run out it falls.

All of this is why in government it is drummed into ministers and advisers by officials that amending a private members bill is extremely difficult without the consent of the sponsoring MP. Once it is underway, if it gets going early enough in the session, it is hard to intervene. That’s why since 2010 there have only been five private members bills that have had more than two hours debate in committee and been amended, and then only in limited ways.

MPs that do put forward amendments will be questioned on whether they really need that specific change if it means the difference between this getting to the statute books or not. Those that insist will be labelled as potential wreckers by the pro-lobby. Signatories to amendments will be singled out for attack on social media even if they are just trying to do a good job. MPs of the same party of differing views will be pitted against each other: torn between legislating well and just getting the bill on the statute books. The third reading vote will be even more corrosive but it is likely to be a foregone conclusion if it gets that far.

When MPs vote on Friday they will be voting in favour of the bill and the process.

If this bill becomes law it will impact every single person in England and Wales and how we live and end our lives. And the brunt will be felt by the most vulnerable – those that may want to live but may be pressured to die. They deserve more than this rushed process and a Private Member’s Bill.

[This article expresses my personal opinion informed by my time as Director of Legislative Affairs in No 10, overseeing the Government's legislative programme. For clarity I have used the term 'Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide' in line with the Health and Social Care Select Committee's approach]