This was no accidental death. Legislation that the public wants and the House of Commons passed was effectively vetoed by a handful of unelected individuals raising hundreds of largely spurious objections. A desperate bid to revive the Assisted Dying Bill failed after 91 of 649 members of parliament found themselves unable – or unwilling – to vote earlier this month.
The remarkable leap of 50 in the number of abstentions since last year’s Commons vote ended the bill’s chances for another session and, potentially, for several years. Cynics suggest that the new PM’s lack of support for the bill might have influenced career-conscious Labour MPs. But whatever the explanation, the outcome was intended: those who wanted to kill the bill succeeded.
Whatever your personal stance on assisted dying, this trouncing of democracy should cause deep discomfort for all who are engaged in the political process. That some MPs had other engagements so pressing that they could not attend Westminster to vote on a matter literally of life and death might not impress their constituents, particularly those dealing with terminal illness. But the saga has highlighted some fundamental problems in our parliamentary system.
The most obvious is the way in which the Lords was able to thwart the Commons. The outrageous assortment of amendments that fatally delayed the progress of the bill has been well rehearsed, but the fact that the Lords, rejoicing in its status as a “self-regulating House”, was unable to find a means of exerting discipline over the few members who were determined to block the bill must be remedied.
The Whips would have been able to push the bill much harder if the government had been behind it, but because of the sensitivity of the cause, it was put forward as a private member’s bill, ie, not proposed by the government itself. Governments get very squeamish about issues that touch on religion.
Suggested Reading
The new Trump vaccine order could kill thousands of Americans
Faith groups had strong views and mounted effective lobbying efforts, but people didn’t make their religious motivations clear for taking a particular stance on the bill. Perhaps the issue of declarations of interest should be revisited.
An intention to at least turn up in Westminster should surely be a pre-requisite for MPs. Voters regularly see television footage of debates taking place in front of audiences so small that they would dishearten even the most amateur of comedians.
Absence from the chamber does not necessarily mean that the elected member is not hard at work elsewhere on behalf of constituents but, if they were, for instance, the member for Clacton, they might equally well be labouring on behalf of gold bullion or crypto interests.
Any mention of hiking their salaries guarantees a furore of righteous objections but a smaller number of better-paid but full-time MPs has to merit consideration. But then, having only just returned from their summer recess, parliamentarians are now enjoying a three-week break for conference season.
The Lords is at least considering altering its working hours. Demonstrating the same sloth-like approach to change that sees parliament still discussing whether or not it should move out of its antiquated building, the proposals are hardly radical – starting at 1pm on Tuesdays or Wednesdays or, in a truly revolutionary move, both.
This may well leave onlookers struggling to reconcile this thinking with the world in which they live. Another recent parliamentary decision might have left them even more bewildered. The speaker was asked to allot time in the chamber for a debate on AI. Instead he made space for a debate on English whisky.
