Why Starmer has stayed silent over his views on assisted dying – and how that could backfire

Strangely, despite backing the bill in 2015, the prime minister has refused to state his views ahead of the crucial vote, writes Andrew Grice – who believes he should be leading the debate from the front

As MPs prepare for what many believe will be the most momentous decision of their political life, some on both sides of the assisted dying debate are puzzled by Keir Starmer’s silence on the issue.

The prime minister is “very pleased” Friday’s vote is happening and has reminded us he kept his promise to Esther Rantzen that it would take place if Labour won this year’s election. He has said he has set out his views previously; he backed assisted dying when the Commons rejected it in 2015 and as director of public prosecutions, issued guidelines making it unlikely people acting compassionately to end the life of someone would be prosecuted.

But strangely, Starmer has refused to state his views ahead of the crucial vote. “I certainly won’t be putting pressure on anyone in relation to the way they vote, because I do respect the two different camps,” he said. He is not expected to attend the five-hour second reading debate but will vote. Allies say Starmer is sticking to the rules after Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, told ministers to remain neutral on Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill.

Yet the government’s neutrality has been shattered as one cabinet minister after another indicated their personal view, notably the two ministers who would have to implement the bill – Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who angered Downing Street by suggesting it could come at the expense of other NHS services – and Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary.

Fourteen members of the 26-strong cabinet are believed to support assisted dying and eight have suggested they oppose it. These opponents are not alone. Despite Starmer’s instincts, I’m told some senior No 10 figures are worried. They think approval of the bill on Friday would in effect force ministers to treat it as if it were government legislation.

They would have to order an impact assessment, start work on how to implement it and address the inadequate provision of palliative care. Crucially, these advisers fret that the inevitable heated debate on the bill over the next six months would eclipse much of the government’s agenda – notably its drive to win public support for its NHS reforms. “There’s a danger everything else will be drowned out,” one insider told me.

Others spot a plus: Labour would get the credit for a radical social reform that would be remembered by future generations alongside the decriminalisation of homosexual acts and laws covering abortion, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. However, such brownie points would be much easier to win if the PM were leading the debate from the front – as David Cameron did on gay marriage – and some assisted dying backers are unhappy Starmer is yet to do so.

“There is a risk of looking like a commentator on events rather than being in the driving seat,” one Starmer ally admitted.

No one at Westminster knows how the free vote will go and Leadbeater said today it would be “very close”. I hope MPs give the bill a second reading. It seems a wrecking amendment to delay a vote until after an independent review and public consultation is unlikely to gain enough traction. Its supporters claim they want a proper debate, but the way to do that is to allow the bill to proceed. A royal commission would take years and probably kill off any change in this five-year parliament.

I recognise the argument that some people might feel under pressure to opt for an earlier death so they are not “a burden” on their families. But I think the bill has enough safeguards – sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge, with coercion becoming an offence punishable with up to 14 years in jail. There doesn’t seem to be evidence of coercion in the dozen countries and 10 US states which have a form of assisted dying law.

Nor do I buy the idea the measure would be a “slippery slope”. It is called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, so it could not be extended – for example, to people with chronic, long-term conditions who were not expected to die within six months – without fresh legislation.

True, assisted dying would be a big change – but it is one a majority of people want provided there are proper safeguards. As someone who used to spend about 15 hours a week visiting two close family members in care homes, I have seen several bad, long deaths – including that of one of my relatives.

I believe an assisted dying law would have spared terminally ill residents I got to know the physical pain, and their families the emotional pain of their bad deaths. I think everyone should enjoy the right these people were denied: choosing when to die with dignity on their own terms. I would certainly like that choice. I respect Starmer but I am disappointed he is not making the case for something he and I both believe in. It is, after all, a matter of life and death.