Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its Second Reading in the Commons on Friday, which means that it is considerably more likely than not to end up on the statute book. Normally, when momentous legislation is before the House, the media is full of glowing tributes to the quality of the speeches, and we hear many warm words about MPs rising to the occasion and so forth.
If you read Hansard from even 30 years ago, let alone 50 or 60, the sophistication and rigour of parliamentary argument is quite remarkable
It may be my imagination, but there seems to have been rather less of that this time round. Even the most generous of Westminster observers would have struggled to find much to admire in the speeches given in favour of assisted suicide. Leadbeater simply read out most of her proposition speech, in a flat and monotonous tone, with no verve or style. As a Twitter friend noted, Erskine May – the authoritative guide to every aspect of parliamentary procedure, first published 180 years ago and now in its 25th edition – states that ‘in principle, a Member is not permitted to read a speech’ on the reasonable grounds that ‘debate is more than a series of set speeches prepared beforehand without reference to each other.’ The rule seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance nowadays. No doubt MPs see precedent and tradition as part of the stuffy old ways that are now being rightly swept aside by tidy-minded modernising reformers.
That disdain for what has gone before arises at least in part from a huge lack of seriousness in our legislators. This has been on full display in the run-up to the vote. Leadbeater and her co-sponsors struggled consistently to give a full and accurate account of what her bill actually contained. They have made misleading claims about how it compares to other assisted suicide laws around the world. They have even taken umbrage at the very idea that there should be a robust and full debate about the proposal. Earlier this month, Leadbeater said that she found it ‘disappointing’ and ‘upsetting’ that members of the cabinet had vocally opposed the bill, which leads inevitably to the thought that MPs who don’t appreciate the cut-and-thrust of principled disagreement might be in the wrong line of work. A few weeks ago, in a Newsnight interview, Christine Jardine waffled and prevaricated in response to questioning about how the provisions of the bill would enable the detection of coercion.
In the Second Reading debate, Stourbridge MP Cat Eccles interrupted Danny Kruger’s excellent speech opposing the bill to complain about his use of the word ‘suicide’, suggesting that it was ‘offensive’. She was quite rightly ignored by the Speaker, but the attempt to police language in such a schoolmarmish manner demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the culture – and indeed the purpose – of the House of Commons.
Then of course there was the Prime Minister’s bizarre assertion at the start of October that the government was making time and space for an assisted suicide debate because he had ‘made a promise to Esther Rantzen before the election’. Whatever he meant by this, to give the impression that the legislative agenda for a government is being set by the wishes of a single celebrity is plain odd. Almost ten million people voted for the Labour party in July – how many of them get personal attention from the PM?
We might note other examples of the lack of thought and weight that legislators have attached to this whole proceeding. Jess Phillips was one of many MPs who dragged out the old chestnut about bodily autonomy, seemingly without having considered any of the nuances or tensions of that position, and admitting at the same time that she wasn’t sure the NHS was able to manage assist suicide in a safe way. Rupert Lowe of Reform based his own vote in favour not on a careful consideration of the issues, but on a straw poll of his constituents in Great Yarmouth. About 1,200 people responded, out of an electorate of 70,000, rather less than 2 per cent.
The Commons as a body failed to give this enormously significant moral and legal change enough time for debate. Second Reading is generally considered to be the main opportunity for debate over the essential principles of a bill, so is generally the only stage at which the Commons can entirely reject legislation. And yet only five hours were available, which meant that members’ speeches were limited to five minutes. It is extremely difficult to set out a sustained, clear and coherent argument about a subject like assisted suicide in five minutes. And only a small minority of members were able to contribute at all. There were dozens of MPs who wished to speak but were not able to do so. By way of comparison, it has been estimated that something like 700 hours of parliamentary time were devoted to discussion of Labour’s ban on foxhunting 20 years ago.
It is all a far cry from some of the great Commons debates of old, which would often continue long into the night. If you read Hansard from even 30 years ago, let alone 50 or 60, the sophistication and rigour of parliamentary argument is quite remarkable, all the more so when you remember that MPs were speaking ex tempore, or with just a few notes. MPs routinely make long, detailed arguments over multiple paragraphs, with long and complex sentences. Biblical and literary allusions are common. There is much more real debate going on, i.e. members are responding to opponents’ arguments with their own rebuttals and refutations, rather than simply re-asserting their own points.
It’s easy to look back with rose-tinted spectacles. But it’s hard to deny that the standard of parliamentary discourse has fallen noticeably in recent decades. This is not a mere academic or antiquarian concern. Huge and perhaps irreversible changes to legal principles that have underpinned our civilisation for centuries deserve more and better consideration from our elected representatives.
Comments