Kim Leadbeater's incomplete victory

Human rights won: good. Religious objections were barely mentioned: not so good

By general agreement, last Friday’s debate on Kim Leadbeater’s Terminal Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill showed the House of Commons at its best. It was courteous, thoughtful and frequently moving.

There was, however, something odd about the debate which deserves more attention. Almost three hours into it, Carla Lockhart, the Democratic Unionist MP for Upper Bann said this:

The root of my conviction is this: life in all its forms is of inherent worth and value. While I have come to that conclusion partly because of my faith, like all Members across the House I have listened carefully to the evidence in coming to my conclusion on the danger that this Bill represents. Each individual person is of extraordinary value, not because of their capacity, intelligence or appearance, or for any reason other than that they are human.

I have quoted that passage in full because it was a rare example of a politician making a principled case against all suicide. Otherwise Friday gave us only fleeting glimpses of this view. In a brief intervention, Adnan Hussain (Independent, Blackburn) referred to “a Bill, a state-sanctioned Bill, dealing with a taboo that many of us are reluctant to talk about”. Sir John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings) said: “the Bill would change society’s view of what life and death are all about.”

That was all. The Bill’s other opponents raised specific concerns, but they avoided an absolute aversion to someone choosing how and when to die if they had a terminal illness and less than six months to live. They never said “never”. But equally, they never said “sometimes”. Diane Abbott (Mother of the House and Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington) was unusual in opposing the Bill while explicitly conceding that there were circumstance in which suicide might be appropriate: “I am not against legalising assisted dying in any circumstance, but I have many reservations about this Bill.” She wanted tougher safeguards.

Instead, most of Bill’s opponents listed various objections (slippery slope, dangers of coercion, subtle family pressures, misdiagnosis, state-sponsored death, activist judges, the time is not right, and so on) in ways that, logically, implied a willingness to change their mind should ways be found to meet those objections – but in tones that left the clear impression that this was the last thing they wanted.

As well as the speakers who were reluctant to oppose assisted dying on principle, there were the MPs who did not speak. A quick look through the division lists shows that the 275 MPs who voted against the Bill included a fair number who said nothing who undoubtedly opposed the Bill in principle, either because they are religious or because they represent constituencies with large numbers of religious voters.

It is possible that some of them put their names down to take part in the debate but were not called. However, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, will have made sure that all shades of opinion were properly represented. It seems that an important group of MPs, representing an important strand of opinion, chose not to speak. Lockhart, speaking on behalf of the DUP, was alone in arguing that suicide is always wrong, because life is a gift from God, and only God should decide when to end it.

The case for wanting that case to be heard is not that it is right. I think it is profoundly wrong. If I am one of the unlucky people to contract a terminal illness and who suffers badly, I want the choice that the Bill proposes. “State-sponsored death” worries me far less than a state-sponsored ban on my right to make that choice. I am delighted that the MPs who rejected the Bill because of their (and/or their constituents’) religious principles have been outvoted.

That, though, is not the point. There are occasions when Parliament’s job – democracy’s job – is not just to reach a decision but to reflect the full range of honestly-held opinions around the country. For all the courtesy, passion and humanity on display on Friday, that did not happen.

Kim Leadbeater’s Bill is a huge step forward. However, it would have been even better had those with strong religious beliefs about the sanctity of life made their case at some length, been heard with respect, engaged by the Bill’s supporters and defeated in open argument. Leadbeater’s victory was a great achievement, but it was not quite complete.