Labour planned while in opposition how to introduce assisted dying via a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process, a leaked document has revealed.
The document, seen by the Guardian, proposed a change strikingly similar to the private member’s bill eventually put forward by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater – to limit the change in the law to those who are “mentally competent, terminally ill and have a prognosis of less than six months left to live”.
The leak will raise fresh questions over how much government control there has been behind Leadbeater’s bill.
The House of Lords is holding committee sittings involving line-by-line examinations of the bill on 5 and 12 December and many opposing peers hope they will be able to table hundreds of amendments. Those on the pro-side, including the Labour peer Charles Faulkner, have been holding private talks in an effort to persuade peers not to tie up the bill using parliamentary tactics.
But a Labour source opposed to the bill said the leak exposed “a shadow policymaking process, outside of the Labour manifesto, and with no consultation with MPs, unions or members, that sought to evade scrutiny on an issue of huge importance”.
A spokesperson for Leadbeater said they “categorically denied” that the MP had any conversations with No 10 or the party leadership before she took up the issue of assisted dying after winning the private member’s bill ballot.
Keir Starmer has long been a supporter of changing the law, drawing on his experiences as director of public prosecutions. Shortly after the document was circulated internally, the prime minister publicly raised the possibility of a law change via a private member’s bill.
When leader of the opposition, he told broadcasters in December 2023: “There are grounds for changing the law … Traditionally this has always been dealt with through a private member’s bill and a free vote and that seems appropriate to me.”
Though the change was not in Labour’s manifesto, the policy note suggests that legalising assisted dying could be popular as it would help win back older voters traditionally more in favour after having seen the suffering of dying elderly relatives.
The policy note – which makes 11 references to the campaign group Dignity in Dying – was drafted in November 2023 and warns there would be “strong, impactful campaigns in favour of assisted dying during the general election campaign” and that the party needed to set out its position.
The note said the change was “popular with the public” and mentioned a Daily Express campaign to legalise assisted dying and a Sky News poll showing mass support for the change.
It added that because of the likelihood of questions during the general election campaign, it was “necessary to reach a position on how we approach legalisation of assisted dying”.
The document said moves to legalise assisted dying “polls well, particularly amongst hero voters in areas we must win back, for whom this is particularly prescient (eg older demographics with ageing parents who are more likely to experience serious and terminal illness)”.
The document said the party’s current line was neutral on the issue, with the note warning that was “unlikely to sustain us through an election campaign where there are strong campaigns advocating for us to adopt a clearer position.
“We could choose to do nothing, but this is an option that fails to recognise public opinion and which campaigners argue leads hundreds of people to take matters into their own hands and puts relatives who help their loved ones at risk of prosecution.”
It also warned that not to act would “show Labour as unable to take a position on difficult issues or face challenges head on”.
The note uses the warmest language about the possibility of using a private member’s bill to take the issue forward, “allowing all members of the house a free, conscience vote on a cross-party matter”.
skip past newsletter promotion
Get the day’s headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
“We know there are existing Conservative MPs who are supporters of this policy. We also know we can control the parameters of legislation carefully through working with advocacy groups and government civil servants to draft the legislation and provide conditions for parliamentary time.”
It said a government bill would carry more risks by Labour taking ownership of the issue and that the parameters of any bill could be “influenced heavily through the PMB process if we are lending government support”.
Leadbeater’s spokesperson said the government had “remained scrupulously neutral throughout the passage of the bill through the House of Commons and now into the Lords”.
He added: “Government officials, lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen have given extensive expert advice to ensure the bill is workable and effective, but all the policy decisions have been for Kim and Lord Faulkner alone. The allegation that this is government legislation by the backdoor is simply false.”
But the party source opposed to the bill said: “At a time when the Lords are being told democracy requires them to nod this bill through, it is now clear that the process in the Commons bypassed the usual processes for developing laws of this magnitude and that everyone has been misled about the nature and origin of the bill.
“It’s bitterly disappointing that No 10 have sought to use the machinery of government and other parties as cover on an issue that needs more scrutiny, not less.”
Other options in the note include the possibility of establishing a commission, tabling a non-binding vote or putting a government bill down on assisted dying, though many of the options are heavily caveated.
The note warns that any legislation which included intolerable suffering as a route to assisted dying “should not be considered by Labour at this time and would carry significant political and ethical risk, alongside opposition from … NHS staff”.
A Labour spokesperson said: “It’s completely normal for a wide range of policy proposals to be assessed by political parties in opposition. MPs have been able to vote with their conscience on the terminally ill adults bill throughout its passage through parliament and the government has not taken a position. It is for MPs to decide whether this bill is passed.”
