Ministers following own ‘moral code’ on assisted dying vote – Jess Phillips
Home Office minister Jess Phillips defended her colleague Shabana Mahmood, who made clear she would vote against the Bill in a strongly worded letter.
Senior Government figures opposed to the assisted dying Bill are following their own “moral code”, a minister has suggested, ahead of a vote on the law change this week.
Home Office minister Jess Phillips defended her colleague Shabana Mahmood, who made clear she would vote against the Bill in a strongly worded letter to constituents which emerged over the weekend.
She faced a backlash from Labour peer Lord Falconer for the public intervention, who suggested the Justice Secretary was motivated by her religious beliefs.
Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater’s legislation will come before the Commons on Friday, in the first debate and vote of its kind in the House since 2015.
Members will be given a free vote on the issue, allowing them to make a decision according to their own conscience rather than in line with party policy.
This has allowed senior ministers to openly give a variety of opinions on the issue, as they are not bound by a collective Government approach.
Ms Phillips defended Ms Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, in an appearance on the morning broadcast round.
The Home Office minister told Times Radio: “She (Ms Mahmood) will make the decision about how she votes on assisted dying on a matter of conscience, just exactly like I will.
“How she comes to that and what moral code she uses to come to that will be exactly the same as the moral code that I use to come to that decision as well.”
Ms Phillips added: “I think that Shabana is making a decision on what she thinks is best for her constituents, like every constituency MP.”
The minister said she would be backing the Bill, telling BBC Breakfast: “I am a person who fundamentally believes in the right for people to make a choice about their bodies.”
Ms Mahmood is not the only senior figure who has criticised the Bill. Health Secretary Wes Streeting claimed it could cost the NHS more.
In a letter last month, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the Government would remain neutral and suggested ministers avoid taking part in public debate on the issue.Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has declined to say which way he will vote, saying that he does not want to put pressure on other MPs.
The Cabinet is split over the issue, with more members believed to be in favour than against.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband have all said they will back the law.
Others, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, have been less explicit, but indicated their support for the measures in the Bill.
Meanwhile Ms Mahmood, Mr Streeting, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds have said they will reject the legislation.
Lord Falconer, a former justice secretary and longstanding proponent of a change in the law, criticised the Justice Secretary’s intervention on Sunday.
On Monday, Downing Street declined to be drawn into the row between Lord Falconer and Ms Mahmood, saying it was “up to MPs to determine their position on (the Bill)” and the Prime Minister “respects that there are strongly held views on all sides of the debate”.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman added: “We’ve been clear that the Government will remain neutral but Cabinet members will clearly be voting as MPs with independent views.
“And it will be perfectly normal that there will be different views in that respect and it is obviously expected that they will want to explain to their constituents how they are going to vote on this highly emotive issue.”
Supporters of the Bill are optimistic that it has enough backing for the legislation to pass the first Commons hurdle, but the result will not be known until a division list is published after the vote, showing which way MPs voted.
Proponents say existing legislation fails to respect patient autonomy and discriminates financially between those who can afford to travel abroad to end their lives within the law and those who cannot.
Many of those opposed to a law change have voiced concern about the potential for coercion and mission creep, and say the legislation has been rushed.
A group of group of 29 faith leaders united to oppose the Bill in a joint letter on Sunday, saying they were “deeply concerned” that it could open up the possibility of “life-threatening abuse”.
Ms Leadbeater has described the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill as the most “robust” in the world, with “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of a sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge.
It would also make coercion an offence, with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.
The Bill, which covers England and Wales, says that only terminally-ill adults with less than six months left to live and a settled wish to die would be eligible.
Various polling has been done on the topic, with the latest from More in Common finding 65% support the principle of assisted dying while 13% oppose it and the rest are unsure.
Its polling of around 2,000 people across Great Britain this month also found that almost a third (30%) were unaware a debate on the issue is happening in Parliament.
Around a quarter of those polled said eligibility for assisted dying should be on the basis of life expectancy, which is the case with the current Bill, but 51% said people with terminal degenerative paralysing conditions should be eligible, something the current Bill does not propose.
