Calum Davies: For the Senedd the Assited Dying debate and it’s consequences are far from over

Calum Davies is a Conservative councillor in Cardiff and previously stood for the Senedd in 2021.

Assisted dying is a topic that has divided parties along both expected and surprising lines. Many opponents are concerned because of the unintended consequences it could unleash.

While the ones highlighted during the debate – from people being coerced into agreeing to their own death, to the NHS including financial grounds in their decision-making – are incredibly serious, there are other implications, more tangential to the debate, that the bill will trigger should it become law. At least that was the case before Friday.

During its committee stage, Kim Leadbeater’s private members bill was amended – against her wishes – in a manner that effectively gave the Senedd the power to decide when to bring the bill into force. Last week, MPs voted for her amendment overturning this, taking away the effective veto MSs were due to get on implementing the Bill.

This is of particular significance as the Senedd had already voted against the principle of assisted dying last autumn, again, with voices for and against in all parties.

Given there is an election for an expanded Senedd less than a year away, whether this aversion to a change in the law remains is an uncertainty. However, given the Senedd has already rejected the notion with its left-wing supermajority, it is less likely to change its mind given the incoming Reform contingent is expected to reduce the proportion of so-called progressive MSs after May next year.

Those of us who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament have been given a lucky escape. A reprieve from what sometimes feels like an inevitable flow of powers that only goes one way – to the Senedd.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for those who want to change the law to facilitate assisted dying, personally, I have been unable to reconcile this with the desire to ensure such a law can guarantee this will work in the interest of the patient and prevent coercion or warping the way in which we evaluate whether a life should end or not. So, I am against the Bill but am pleased the Senedd has not been given more powers even if it did pass.

Knowing the Senedd could likely have left the law unimplemented permanently, it is not easy acknowledging there was a route out of it. However, I am certain that the divergence in lawmaking, permitted by devolution, has not served the best interests of the British nation – and cannot because divergence, by definition, means weakening the Union – nor Wales itself over the last 25 years.

Parts of the assisted dying “regime” (for lack of a better word) has both devolved and non-devolved aspects. Criminal law is a matter reserved for Parliament whilst health is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.

Both parts need to be in lockstep for the law to work but the unintended consequence is how this whole debate is straying into other areas of division. I wrote in my last column about the rift developing between Welsh Labour MPs and MSs – and, thus, the British and Welsh governments – on matters of both money and lawmaking.

Now the Senedd won’t have a veto on assisted dying, could it cause Welsh Labour more problems? Many MSs will be relieved that they won’t have to make the difficult decisions MPs have had to grapple with. However, others from their nationalist wing will have been relishing the chance to be consequential, getting the chance to have their own vote on implementation.

If they’re brave enough, Plaid Cymru could deploy another attack line against Labour. Plaid itself is split on the principle of assisted dying but united in that it – and everything else, of course – should be up to the Senedd. As MSs have already rejected assisted dying, it could prove a fertile means of appealing to those who oppose the law and portray Wales in a contrasting manner to pro-assisted dying Westminster.

Whilst we should all be grateful that the Senedd has not been handed more powers, believers in the sovereignty of Parliament cannot rest on our laurels. The Leadbeater amendment to deprive Cardiff Bay of a veto of this Bill was not due to a determination to uphold the constitutional settlement. She simply wants to ensure no one gets to circumvent her potentially historical law. We have seen throughout the approach to the Bill a possessiveness from her that is astonishing given its implications.

According to the Commons voting record, more Welsh Labour MPs backed Leadbeater’s amendment than opposed it, including the Welsh Secretary.

Hopefully, those MPs who voted to deny the Senedd a veto did do so because of they want to uphold Parliament’s authority, though I doubt it. However, I would not blame Welsh Labour MPs if they did so because they did not want to give their colleagues in Cardiff Bay more powers or another opportunity to diminish their influence as MPs, their twin bugbears over the last quarter of a century. A win’s a win I suppose.

So, whilst there are hundreds of questions directly concerning assisted dying that need to be answered before this bill becomes law, MPs had to ask themselves another on a constitutional level. Hopefully, this will inspire the oft-absent critical thinking in this regard when it comes to future legislation.