A crisis in law making? The case of assisted dying
Prior to MPs approving the Assisted Dying Bill, concerns were raised about the way proposed legislation on such an important matter was introduced into parliament, by means of a private members’ bill. Further claims were levied at the use of a swath of technical procedures to increase the likelihood of the Bill being passed. Many argued that the committee was stacked with a majority of supportive MPs and heard a disproportionate amount of ‘expert’ testimony from those in favour of the Bill. MPs were left with little time for proper debate, especially in relation to last-minute amendments.
The whole process has led to widespread claims that the Bill was badly thought-through and insufficiently scrutinised. And yet this law – if passed – will fundamentally change the relationship between the state and individuals, and between the NHS and patients.
This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the erosion of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic debate. For example, in 2023, the then Conservative government’s Illegal Migration Act was said to have been subject to limited consultation and fast-tracked through parliament without proper debate. In June this year, an amendment was attached to the Crime and Policing Bill that stopped women being prosecuted in England and Wales for terminating their pregnancy at any stage, even up to birth. There was a backlash that another huge shift in legislation and societal norms took place without public debate.
Moreover, in July, Keir Starmer was forced to abandon core elements of the Welfare Bill, following a strong rebellion from Labour MPs and claims that the Bill had gone through so many changes it barely resembled the original. This led to a huge dint in the PM’s authority and – some say – the cause of Rachel Reeves’s emotional display at PMQs.
Wherever you stand on these issues, they represent big changes to UK law and to broader society. In each case, the legislative process has taken place with questions over proper democratic engagement. What’s more, where once the bypassing of proper parliamentary oversight was reserved for more technical matters for the sake of expediency, it seems clear that this has now been expanded into a wide range of more fundamental policy areas. The sheer number of laws using statutory instruments and Henry VIII powers, which defer detailed decisions to the executive and civil servants, seems to suggest an increased tendency to bypass both parliamentary and public accountability.
Using the example of the Assisted Dying Bill, this session will explore whether there are legitimate concerns surrounding the law-making process and whether it represents a threat to parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and to democracy itself. Do these trends illustrate a disdain for both elected politicians and the demos’s ability to determine the affairs of the nation?
