Assisted dying and democratic niceties

Currently in the UK, Parliament is debating a bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater, the sister of the assassinated Labour MP Jo Cox who was selected for the same seat after Cox’s successor was elected to a mayoralty, to legalise “assisted dying”, by which a doctor can administer or prescribe a lethal dose of a sedative to someone who has requested it because they are terminally ill and in intractable pain or have other chronically unpleasant symptoms. Currently, assisting a suicide is illegal, and while people who have assisted severely disabled relatives who cannot physically get hold of the necessary doses of whatever substance they intend to use are usually given suspended sentences (as with Kay Gilderdale in 2010), this still leaves them with a criminal record. This legislation goes further than simply decriminalising that act, but requires that a doctor be involved. With the House of Commons having waved the legislation through and refused a number of amendments intended to reduce the risk of unintended consequences, the bill has faced a lot of opposition in the House of Lords, an upper chamber nowadays mostly consisting of appointed “Life Peers”; there are also 26 Anglican bishops and archbishops (in the past, the house consisted mostly of hereditary peers, who were the holders of large historic estates — dukes, earls, viscounts, barons etc — who were overwhelmingly men, as well as a group of senior judges who are now part of the Supreme Court and no longer sit in the Lords). Some of the amendments proposed in the Lords are obviously unserious, and has led to a lot of chest-puffing in publications sympathetic to the bill, notably the New Statesman: who are the Lords to frustrate a bill that has been passed by the elected Commons? Don’t they know their place?

The House of Lords is entitled to scrutinise bills and can introduce amendments. Those amendments can, however, be voted down in the Commons and, when the bill was introduced by the government and the governing party opposes the amendments, they usually are voted down. Peers are appointed specifically to have diversity of backgrounds and life experiences, and some — far more than in the Commons — are not party-political (known as cross-benchers). Until the early 20th century, the House of Lords was dominated by the actual lords, wealthy men who were mostly very conservative, and they would vote down vital legislation such as those intended to settle the situation in Ireland. Their power to veto a bill altogether ended with the 1911 Parliament Act; all they are able to do now is to delay a bill becoming law by a year (the Liberal government achieved this by threatening a “mass creation” of Liberal peers after the lords had rejected budgets and Irish Home Rule bills). Convention dictates that the lords do not obstruct bills which were part of a governing party’s manifesto; the Leadbeater bill is a private member’s bill, albeit one tacitly supported by the government. However, the attempt to filibuster this bill has led to disapproval from some peers, including Michael Howard, the former Tory leader, as noted in the New Statesman last week, and outright scorn from the magazine and some of its letter writers; one this week called the debate “the sixth-form debating games in the House of Quangocrats” (referring to heads of arms-length administrative bodies) and another calling it “self-indulgence and sabotage of the popular will” and calling for the House of Lords to be abolished.

Filibusters of private members’ bills (prolonging debate so that it runs out of time) is nothing new; the Tory government in the mid-1990s of which Michael Howard was a part used amendments, the same tactic currently being used in the Lords, to talk out an anti-discrimination bill for disabled people. Also relevant to this is the attitude fostered towards disabled people since the party came to power in 2010: the widespread perception, promoted in the Tory popular press, that many disabled people are ‘scroungers’ and are claiming benefits they do not need and should not really be entitled to; this has continued since Labour returned to power this year, with a recent media storm about people using Motability, a charity that arranges leases of adapted cars using the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which replaced the Disability Living Allowance during the 2010-15 Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government, to buy posh German cars at state expense (in fact, the lessee must pay out of pocket if they want a more expensive car), and that many of those using the service have no worse disability than anxiety (in fact, someone with only anxiety would not get the mobility allowance necessary, if indeed any PIP at all). In short, it has come to be widely accepted that disabled people’s dignity and independence is an indulgence not worth the taxpayer’s expense, a phenomenon widely seen across the western world in recent years. It costs a lot less to prescribe a lethal dose of sedative than it does to provide a suitable wheelchair or to adapt someone’s flat so that they can live independently or semi-independently, and in countries where medically assisted suicide has been legalised, there have been many documented cases of people refused surgery or assistance for independent living but offered the lethal dose. In Canada the acronym is MAiD (medical assistance in dying), an old-fashioned word for a personal assistant.

As far as this being the “popular will” is concerned, the mere fact of it being that does not mean it should become law; parliamentarians are expected to exercise their judgement while debating laws that could easily have major consequences for many people; that is the principle of representative rather than direct democracy. The “popular will” in the last ten years resulted in us leaving a major trading bloc with no replacement, giving up rights for our children that we had enjoyed for two generations, and may yet see us give up further invaluable rights by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, however, we are talking about a campaign among the political class which has gained the upper hand in the House of Commons which simply refuses to listen to sound arguments, including from much of the medical profession, from the palliative care sector, from disability rights advocates including Tanni Grey-Thompson, one of the peers whose amendment is among those ridiculed in the New Statesman recently, that it will put people’s lives at risk who do not want to die, or who might change their mind in time; it dismisses such objections as irrational, religiously-based, and stuck in the past. This bill has been widely condemned as poorly-drafted and lacking in safeguards, and if MPs had done their jobs properly, the Lords would have had less reason to filibuster it.

And let’s not forget, some of these MPs secured election on the back of quite a small share of their constituents’ votes: in our system, a candidate does not need to win an outright majority, and rarely do; it is possible to win a seat on a vote percentage in the low 30s if one’s opponents are sufficiently divided, and a share in the 40s is very common. Opinion polls currently predict Reform winning the next election, with a large majority, on the basis of around 25-30% of the popular vote. To give an extreme example, the current Labour member for South West Norfolk, Terry Jermy, who voted in favour of the Leadbeater bill, secured only 26.7% of his constituents’ votes, a result made possible by the division of the Tory vote (the seat was formerly held by Liz Truss) between the Tories and Reform. Kevin McKenna, MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in north Kent, gained his seat off a 29.1% share for the same reason, and also voted in favour of this bill. The New Statesman’s columnists and correspondents are indignant because, having thought there were enough people in the Commons who agreed with them (along with enough of the “great and the good”, including a Dimbleby in a recent edition), found that the Lords preferred to defend lives rather than defer to the personal views of people elected on minorities of the popular vote. For once, it is not sufficient to be popular; it looks like one might have to be right to get one’s wishes into law.