Who would have guessed? All too often debates in the Commons are partisan affairs, punctuated by jeers and braying. Where reason is superseded by dogma and ill-temper. This was a very different occasion. Parliament on its very best behaviour. Where necessary, people – mostly politely – agreeing to disagree. MPs heard in silence. Some in tears. Even more remarkable was the feeling there was intelligent life on view. The quality of argument was a cut above the average.
There again, this was no ordinary debate. Most Fridays, Westminster is a ghost town with MPs back home minding their constituencies. But this was an exception. The day when a private member’s bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people took its first step to becoming law. When some men and women of faith tried to imagine making laws for those of no faith.
You could sense the passion. The importance. So often parliament feels remote. This was a law that may affect us all at our time of maximum need. After all, death is the only certainty. It’s just the timing and the manner that’s up for grabs
Here the chamber was packed throughout the five-hour debate. Then a vote in which parliamentarians were free to go with their conscience. Governments don’t allow this sort of thing too often. We might end up with far better laws. Heaven forbid. The bill passed its second reading quite easily by 330 votes to 275. Not nearly as close as some had predicted.
This was the Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater’s bill so she got to talk first. Horror stories of people dying agonising deaths – deaths that no one would wish on their worst enemies. Jennie the guide dog snoozed in an aisle. Her dreams untroubled. She knew that when the time comes, her end will be painless and swift. Even if not of her conscious choosing.
Leadbeater talked through the mechanics. This wasn’t a matter of life or death. It was one of death or death. Only adults who have been given less than six months to live qualify and even then two medical practitioners and a judge had to give the go ahead. Various opponents intervened to raise the issue of coercion. Not so much from families pressurising sick relatives to kill themselves, but terminally ill people believing they had a societal obligation to die sooner.
There were no easy answers to this. We were trading in imperfections. There were no certainties in life. But it was far better to have a situation where these conversations were out in the open. Where doctors were on the lookout for signs of coercion. Because whether terminally ill people were allowed assisted dying or not, they would still be having the same feelings.
And why shouldn’t sparing relatives from the agony of your death not be a small part of choosing to end your life? At present, 600 terminally ill people kill themselves each year. Those that can afford it go to Dignitas. Often alone and sooner than they might ideally like in order not incriminate loved ones. How is that more humane than a medically sanctioned death at home? Some terminally ill people are going to want to kill themselves regardless. This bill was for them, said Leadbeater.
Oliver Dowden interrupted to suggest that judges would inevitably seek to expand the scope of the bill. He seemed to think that all judges were natural born killers. Not content with dispatching the terminally ill, they would soon start working their way through the perfectly well. Weirdly, when it came to the vote, Olive walked through the aye lobby. There again, maybe he thinks it’s a good thing that judges kill as many people as possible. It’s a view, I suppose.
Speaking in opposition to the bill, the Conservative MP Danny Kruger began by saying he was mindful of those whose lives would be prolonged against their wishes. His solution was better palliative and hospice care. Which sounded great. Except no government has ever been prepared to fund that properly. There just aren’t enough to go round. And added to this, there are limits to palliative care. There are some conditions that morphine can’t touch. The pain excruciating. And many people don’t want to die in a state of semi-consciousness.
Danny also had it in for doctors. They too were basically killers at heart. Never come across a patient they didn’t think wouldn’t be better off dead. Best not to give doctors any more excuse than they had now. Going to see his GP must be a troubling experience for him. Never know quite whether you’re going to get out alive.
The quality of debate was uniformly high. Labour’s Florence Eshalomi and the Conservative Kit Malthouse excelled while arguing for opposite sides. The veteran Tory MP David Davis made the case for keeping the debate going by voting for the bill. Otherwise it would be dropped for at least a decade. Amendments could be made at later stages for those worried about inconsistencies or mission creep.
There were exceptions though. James Cleverly – yet again disproving nominative determinism – argued that if the bill was so good, why didn’t we extend it to children. Really. Honest Bob Jenrick used his time to have another go at ECHR. Everything that’s wrong in his world starts at Strasbourg. The independent Adnan Hussain thought we had already started assisted dying by removing the winter fuel allowance. For the only time in the debate, cries of “shame” were heard.
Shortly before the debate wound up, Keir Starmer finally turned up in the Commons fresh from summarily sacking the transport secretary, Louise Haigh. Once the votes had been announced by the speaker there was a brief moment of immanence. When time seemed to stand still. No one quite able to believe what they had done. A change under way as momentous as equal marriage and the abolition of the death penalty. Esther Rantzen gave a statement on TV. The Commons then reverted to debating ferrets. Keeping it real.
-
Taking the Lead by John Crace is published by Little, Brown (£18.99). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.