In the end, it wasn’t as close as many were expecting. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, brought forward as a Private Members Bill by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 330 votes for 275.
But that result does not tell the whole story. It does not capture the fierce tug between radically contrary moral perspectives, laid out in compelling detail in speeches – more than 40 of them in all, not to mention countless other interventions – over an emotionally gruelling five hours on a crisp Friday in Westminster.
By the time the debate began, we were familiar with the arguments for and against. We have heard them all: the case for humane compassion, for choice, for a “good death” and for alleviating terrible suffering, set against anxieties about the “slippery slope”, the risk of pressure and coercion, and crossing the so-called Rubicon by giving the state the right to end lives. We have seen them play out in newspaper columns and in television studios, harrowing personal stories (from both sides) set against medical and legal expertise (from both sides). Many of us will have heard something that changed our minds on this most serious question, only to hear something else that changed our minds again. Indeed, the same will be true for many MPs.
That tension, that fraught uncertainty, played out over and over again as MPs got up to speak. This was not parliament as usual. In the vast majority of debates, the outcome is known beforehand. Even in those where a rebellion threatens to derail the government’s agenda, it is only a handful of MPs whose decision is in doubt. And with the right to speak switching between parties, there is normally a predictable back and forth: for, against, for, against.
Assisted dying is an issue that defies party lines – both within parliament and beyond. So it proved today, with interventions coming from every corner of the House, exploring every position. After Leadbeater introduced her bill – eloquently, without bluster, citing a harrowing list of stories she has been sent about those forced to endure the most horrific suffering at the ends of their lives – it was the turn of Danny Kruger and Diane Abbott to make the case against. One can hardly imagine two more unlikely political bedfellows: a deeply religious arch-Conservative and Labour’s most stridently left-wing socialist. Both spoke with compassion and power.
And so it continued. Almost every MP who got up to speak, proponent or opponent, had a personal story to tell. Meg Hillier fought back tears as she spoke of her daughter, who suffered acute pancreatitis as a teenager; Florence Eshalomi of her how the medical establishment failed her mother, who had sickle-cell anaemia; John Hayes of a much-loved professor who took his own life, “haunted by imagined demons for most of his life and, in the later part of his life, hounded by heartless humans”. There were more accounts of gruesome deaths, and – again, from both sides – of the failures of the current palliative care system.
Some of the most striking interventions came from those MPs from medical backgrounds – doctors with expertise in general practice, emergency medicine, mental health. Dr Ben Spencer, a Conservative, warned of turning doctors who have sworn an oath to prolong life into “agents of a state which counts its weakest members as expendable”. A few moments later, Labour’s Dr Peter Prinsley spoke of how years of experience had changed his mind on assisted dying: “When I was a young doctor, I thought it unconscionable. But now I am an old doctor and I feel sure it is the right change.”
Going into this debate, no one knew how the result would fall. Too many MPs were undecided – or, at least, undeclared. Maybe they knew how they intended to vote and were choosing to keep their own quiet counsel. But if there was a turning point today, it came on procedural grounds rather than that of principle.
Bit by bit, proponents chipped away at the arguments that this specific bill was the wrong vehicle for a change of this magnitude. Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat) urged colleagues to consider not whether they were for or against, but “Do I want to keep talking about the issues in the bill?” She added a challenge: “To those who are making the argument about the process and asking how we can make that better, what does a bill that addresses assisted dying that they might vote for look like? If the answer is that there is none, let us be honest about that.” Alicia Kearns (Conservative) confronted the accusation that there has been insufficient time to consider this legislation: “We have to be honest with ourselves, this bill has been read far more vociferously than most bills that come before this House.” And Jake Richards (Labour) pointed out that, though opponents have said a Private Member’s Bill is not the right mechanism, no one made that criticism when assisted dying was last debated in the same way in 2015.
These were not arguments in favour of the principle of assisted dying. Rather, as Moran outlined, they were calls for the conversation to continue: for MPs to pass the bill at second reading so it could be properly scrutinised and amended in later stages. Veteran Conservative maverick David Davis made the most convincing point of this nature, first explaining how he had changed his own position, and then calling for the government to ensure proper parliamentary time. “This bill is more important than most of the bills in their manifesto,” he said. “Give us the time to get this right.”
Given the strength of feeling in the House today, it may well be that, if the government does not heed Davis’s words and the issues that have been flagged are not sufficiently addressed, the bill will fail at third reading. Opponents argued today that there was little scope to amend the bill after this vote. Normally, they would be right: when the government knows what legislation it wants to pass and has the numbers to pass it, the committee and report stages – not to mention the House of Lords – can seem like a technicality.
But this is not a normal bill. MPs were considering their consciences today, not their whips. That can and should continue as the bill progresses.
We got a glimpse today of something unusual: of legislation being properly debated – not for show, not to score political points, but for the sake of getting a momentous decision right. The atmosphere in the Chamber was at once electric and subdued. With a few exceptions (Robert Jenrick using the opportunity to take aim at “activist judges in Strasbourg”, only for colleagues across the House to react with disgust, being one memorable lowlight), the tone throughout was one of deep respect and empathy. Particularly moving were moments when an MP who had the floor would find themselves too overwhelmed with emotion to speak, only for another – sometimes from a different party entirely – to make a point of order, purely to give them time to regain their composure so they could continue.
Perhaps the most powerful speech of all came right at the end, neither for nor against, when the Conservative MP Kieran Mullan gave the closing statements for the opposition. “I think if you listened closely enough today, you would have actually heard us speaking all with one voice,” he said. “The voice of passion for those people and causes we’re trying to aid with our vote even if those people and causes are different. That passion represents this House at the very best.”
After the vote, as MPs filed back in to hear the result, there was still no indication of which way things would go. There were no cheers as it was revealed that the Ayes had it, nor even many smiles. Just a hushed, reverent silence. Then a sense of bathos and a burst of nervous laughter as the Speaker Lindsay Hoyle announced: “Thank you everybody – we’re going to move onto the Ferrets Bill first if people wish to leave.” And so they moved on. Business as usual.
Only it wasn’t. Something historic happened in Westminster today. It doesn’t mean the bill will become law. It doesn’t fix the concerns that have been raised, both pragmatic and moral in nature, that the UK might be about to do something irreversible and terrible. It won’t make the people who passionately oppose this change any less devastated. But watching the process play out, it was hard not to agree with Mullan: this was parliament at its best.
Content from our partners
Related
