Esmond Birnie: Not game over yet for House of Commons' bad legislation on abortion and ‘assisted dying’

Alas many MPs rather naively concluded they had to pass these bills lest they end up on what is now lazily described as the “wrong side of history”.

What is happening here is that a damaging and wrong narrative has been allowed to develop. It is assumed that the UK must accept that as in the 1960s we face an unstoppable steam roller of social and moral reforms.

In fact, experience from many other Western countries such as Canada and the Netherlands shows that once assisted suicide is legalised the slippery slope cannot be avoided.

Legal definitions will be expanded such that those suffering mental illness or learning disabilities will be facilitated to end their lives rather than receive help to improve them.

Medically assisted deaths in Canada are growing at a very rapid rate and at current trends will soon represent about 5% of total deaths.

Similarly, with regards to abortion in England, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi’s successful amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill crossed a significant legal line. It does this by legalising the destruction of viable babies. It will not be a crime for anyone to intentionally destroy the life of an unborn child capable of being born alive.

There are obvious moral and even economic aspects to all of this. How, for example, is the NHS in England going to be funded to support a ‘national death service’,” especially given that current capacity regarding palliative care is inadequate?

Politicians as diverse as the Labour education secretary and the leader of the Reform Party have begun to question what the UK’s society and economy will look like in the future if we continue with the current very low birth rate. June’s legislation will, if anything, push birth rates down still further.

But over and above all of this one of the most disturbing aspects of all is how the House of Commons has failed in its duty as a deliberative assembly.

We know just how inadequate, limited and rushed was the committee stage for the Kim Leadbetter Bill on Assisted Dying. There was inadequate attention to the legal safeguards.

When witnesses to the committee stage were being selected, the views of opponents were marginalised.

Regarding the abortion liberalisation amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, fewer than 100 MPs took part in a debate which lasted no longer than two hours. Cursory attention was being to a matter of grave consequence.

Add to all of this, we must remember that neither of these measures appeared anywhere in the party manifestos of the 2024 General Election.

This means that the House of Lords would have good grounds to make major alterations to both these pieces of legislation.

Indeed, it is to be hoped that at least one of the major Parties will include rejection of these laws in their manifestos for the next election.

This would allow the general public a chance to have their say.

Esmond Birnie is an independent economist