There was a revolution in Britain this week. Didn't you notice?
Photo byThe result came in seconds before the 2.30pm deadline. In a sweltering Commons chamber, packed with far more people than you would expect on most days let alone on a Friday when MPs tend to be in their constituencies, the result was announced: by 314 votes to 291, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had passed its third reading. While the majority for the Ayes was more than halved since the second reading in November, following bitter committee and report stages, assisted dying will now go the Lords, from whence it is highly likely to become law.
It has been quite a week for social revolution, proving landmark change does not run on a linear timescale. The last big legislative shift of this nature was David Cameron's determination – in opposition to much of his own party – to legalise marriage for same-sex couples in 2013. Twelve years and four elections later, MPs' vote in favour of the assisted dying bill was the second time in a week parliamentarians chose to make fundamental changes on how the state relates to its citizens. On Tuesday, an amendment to the government's Crime and Policing Bill that would remove criminal penalties for women who terminate pregnancy beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks passed in the Commons by a majority of 242 votes.
It is notable that neither of these changes are official policy of Keir Starmer's government. The assisted dying legislation has been brought through the House as a private members bill by Kim Leadbeater – much to the contention of opponents dismayed (indeed, outraged) at the lack of time and to debate it. The abortion amendment was put forward by Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi (who is also, as it happens, a co-sponsor to Leadbeater's bill). Both were free votes, as matters of conscience are according to parliamentary convention. As Dr Kieran Mullan put it in his closing remarks for the opposition, on this issue of life and death MPs did not even have the line from the whips to advise their decision. They had to make up their own minds, with only their consciences – and a wealth of contradictory expert advice, personal stories and harrowing experiences – to guide them.
Almost six decades ago, parliament was gripped by an even fiercer frenzy of social change. It is well-known that the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the legalisation of abortion occurred as part of the 'permissive society' reforms of Harold Wilson's 1966-70 government, which also included the relaxation of divorce law and the effective abolishing of the death penalty. In fact, they occurred not only in the same year, but the same month: July 1967. On a single day – Thursday 13 July – visitors to the public galleries of parliament would have been able to watch either MPs heatedly debating the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill for its report stage and third reading, or the Sexual Offences Bill passing its second reading in the House of Lords.
Both of these reforms were spearheaded not by Wilson's government directly, but by individuals in the Commons and the Lords. The abortion legislation was a private members' bill by Liberal MP David Steel who has discussed the comparisons – and differences – with the current assisted dying bill. Decriminalising homosexuality was championed by Lord Arran, whose late brother was gay, then given parliamentary time by the government. (Lord Arran's other passion project was the protection of badgers. When asked why his efforts on badgers had failed to garner as much support as his crusade for the rights of homosexuals, he replied: 'Not many badgers in the House of Lords.')
Both were also highly contentious, with public opinion deeply divided. 'I cannot stand homosexuals… Prison is much too good a place for them' was the view of the Earl of Dudley during a 1966 Lords debate on the subject. A 1965 Daily Mail poll found that, while 63 per cent of people did not think private homosexual acts between consenting adults should be a criminal offence, 93 per cent believed those involved required medical or psychiatric treatment. Attitudes to abortion depended on the justification, with support on health grounds or in the case of rape, but far more mixed views regarding financial reasons or the issue of personal choice. Outside of a very fringe minority, the idea of either of these progressive reforms being reversed today is unthinkable.
Fast-forwarding four and a half decades, parliament again found itself progressing ahead of public opinion. In 2011 when David Cameron first intervened to ensure gay marriage was introduced within his first term as Prime Minister, just 43 per cent of the public supported it. By the time of the vote itself – a process critics regarded as 'undemocratic' as it had not been in the Conservative manifesto and relied on votes from the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches – that had risen to 54 per cent. Now, only a tiny minority oppose it. There currently are 75 LGBT MPs in parliament, across five parties, many of whom are married to their partners thanks for Cameron's reforms.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
In contrast, assisted dying has wider public support than it does in parliament: as was cited Friday's debate, 75 per cent of people support the principle of the terminally ill being able to choose to end their suffering, while 73 per cent support the actual bill. Parliament is in catch-up mode, which is no doubt one reason MPs have backed the move, despite serious concerns remaining about its impact.
Of course, it is not the job of MPs to simply parrot public opinion. They are sent to parliament to represent their constituents by considering factors – legal, medical, societal – that those who elect them are freed from thinking about. This responsibility was the focus of Friday's debate, as MP after MP – from all corners of the Chamber – stood up to warn about potential unintended consequences. 'As parliamentarians, today we have to cast quite possibly one of the most consequential votes of our time in this place,' Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson cautioned the House. Conservative Tom Tugendhat called it 'a transformation in the way in which power lies', while Labour's Chi Onwurah echoed the words of many of her colleagues when she told the chamber: 'This is not your average bill. It fundamentally changes the relationship between state and citizen.'
There were many more speeches opposing specific aspects of the bill: the insufficiency of safeguards; the potential for coercion; the risks to disabled people, those suffering with mental health conditions such as anorexia, and victims of domestic abuse; medical complications regarding the process itself; the concerns of professional bodies of doctors and psychiatrists; and issue of substandard palliative care – not to mention criticism of the committee and report stages and the lack of time to debate amendments.
The link to the abortion vote of Tuesday was made both implicitly and directly. Lib Dem Sarah Olney talked of the 'settled consensus' on abortion provision since David Steel's bill, unchanged for 58 years until Tuesday, because of the work that had gone into it before the parliamentary stages to ensure a stable foundation. Labour's Jen Craft talked of being immediately offered a termination when medical professional discovered her unborn daughter would have Down Syndrome, warning 'We cannot legislate against discrimination'. This is not the first time parliament has considered shifting perspectives on how to value human life. It is not even the first time this week.
On the other side came equally passionate arguments: on a status quo that is 'cruel' and 'unacceptable', beset with 'profound injustices'; on compassion, humanity, choice, and pain relief; on alleviating suffering and attempting to shorten death as opposed to shortening life, as the Roman philosopher Seneca would have put it. But anyone watching could not fail to notice that the pro speeches were significantly outnumbered – surprising, given the end result. Perhaps, with the numbers anticipated to come down on the side of passing the legislation, those against felt an even fiercer moral duty to get their objections on record at this final moment.
One voice notably absent from the debate was that of the Prime Minister himself. A long-standing personal supporter of assisted dying, Keir Starmer has chosen to keep this process at arms-length throughout its passage. There were doubts as to whether he would even turn up on Friday. (He was in Canada for the G7 on Tuesday for the abortion vote – an absence that has fuelled criticism of a Prime Minister too detached to lead.) In the end, he made the journey from Downing Street to the Palace of Westminster, pausing his contemplation of the UK's response if the US decides to attack Iran in Downing Street to watch the closing speeches and walk through the Aye lobby.
Moments beforehand, health minister Stephen Kinnock had closed the debate by assuring the House that 'should it be the will of Parliament for this legislation to pass, the government will ensure the safe, effective implementation of this service' – a promise that threw into stark relief the government's determination not to involve itself with this legislation. Kinnock was following Kieran Mullan summing up for the opposition benches, who had criticised the government for not providing more time on the floor of the House for such an important issue.
When the history books cover Starmer's time in office, it is highly likely that assisted dying and the change it represents will be the cornerstone of his legacy. The consequences of this legislation are more far-reaching than Cameron's push for marriage equality – more significant, even, than the 1967 reforms to abortion and gay rights. We have examples from around the world of how assisting dying provision can expand; while Britain is behind some other countries on the trajectory, we have little way of anticipating the full consequences of this shift. In 2013, critics of same-sex marriage argued it was an assault on the family that would irreparably damage the foundations of society. For most people in the UK today, the objections from scarcely over a decade ago look patently ridiculous.
But opinion polls can only tell us so much, and trends can go in more than one direction. Stark warnings were raised in the Commons on Friday – warnings that could well transpire to be Cassandra-like prophecies without the right legal, medical and societal frameworks. Failure in this regard will be considered – rightly – a failure of the Starmer government. Whether he intended it or not, this could end up being the defining week of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister.
[See more: Ed Miliband keeps winning]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Sir Keir Starmer tries to contain rebellion among Labour MPs over welfare reforms
Sir Keir Starmer had a series of one-on-one meetings with Labour MPs on Friday to try to contain a rebellion on the government's welfare reforms. Ahead of the assisted dying vote, the prime minister met privately with some of the dozens of MPs with concerns about the proposed cuts to sickness and disability benefits. The first vote on the legislation, which the chancellor says will save £5bn a year from the welfare bill, will be held in early July. The prime minister's involvement at this stage suggests a major effort is underway to quell a potential rebellion. Cabinet ministers say they do not expect mass resignations, but one junior minister told Sky News that opposition to the reforms was "pretty strong". One frontbencher, government whip Vicky Foxcroft, resigned her post yesterday, writing that she understood "the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill" but did not believe the proposed cuts "should be part of the solution". Other junior ministers and whips have not, as yet, moved to follow her. But one government insider said: "It's difficult to tell if the mood will harden as we get closer. There's a lot of work going on." The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were "impossible to support". 1:34 Welfare secretary Liz Kendall is also meeting individually with MPs. She said earlier this week that the welfare system is "at a crossroads" and the bill was about "compassion, opportunity and dignity". Ministers are trying to convince MPs that a £1bn fund to support disabled people into work, and the scrapping of the Work Capability Assessment, a key demand of disability groups, make the cuts package worth voting for. They insist that 90% of current claimants of personal independence payment (PIP) will not lose the benefit. But disability groups say the cuts will have a "disastrous" effect on vulnerable people.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Terror cops probe RAF security bungle after pro-Palestine fanatics break into Britain's biggest air base
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) TERROR cops were last night probing a security shambles after pro-Palestine fanatics on scooters broke into Britain's biggest air base. The thugs hurled red paint into two planes' engines after cutting fencing at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Red paint can be seen on and around the Airbus Voyager at RAF Brize Norton Credit: ITV News 7 A Palestine Action fanatic rides towards the plane on an electric scooter after evading security at the base Credit: x 7 The vandals' paint kit hangs from the scooter's handlebars Credit: x PM Keir Starmer called the attack 'disgraceful'. The group, Palestine Action will be outlawed as a terrorist organisation after the brazen paint stunt at Britain's biggest air base. The Government was last night under huge pressure following the security shambles at the high-security base. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper responded by saying she will put forward legislation on Monday to make being a member of the group illegal. READ MORE RAF NEWS PLANE MAD Palestine activists attack plane on RAF base in 'grotesque security breach' Two fanatics on electric scooters were thought to have cut a section of the base's eight-mile perimeter fence in rural Oxfordshire, early yesterday. Palestine Action posted a 34-second video of the pair riding up to two Airbus Voyagers in the dark. They then used converted fire extinguishers to spray paint on to the turbines and fuselages of the planes in a bid to ruin the engines. The fanatics fled and were being hunted by counter-terror cops. PM Sir Keir Starmer condemned the action as 'disgraceful' and 'an act of vandalism'. The group also targeted commercial sites in Manchester and Chelmsford, Essex, yesterday which they claimed had links to Israel. Security alert as man seen climbing up Big Ben sparking huge emergency response Checks were under way on the aircraft, which cost £750million over their lifetime. Sources said damage to the engines could run into 'seven figures'. The RAF does not expect the incident to affect wider operations. Brize Norton — home to 6,000 military staff, 300 civilian workers and 1,200 contractors — is the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. 7 Paint can be seen daubed on the engine and fuselage at dawn Credit: Sky News 7 The group claims to have sprayed paint into the engine - and putting the jet out of action Credit: Sky News Palestine Action said: 'By decommissioning two military planes, Palestine Action have directly intervened in the genocide and prevented crimes against Palestinians.' But a defence source said the group was 'confused and misguided' in its mission. The source said: 'These planes were for air transport and air-to-air refuelling. Trying to link the Voyager fleet to Gaza is ridiculous.' An MoD spokesman confirmed that Voyager aircraft had not been involved in refuelling or supporting Israeli Air Force jets. They have been used to refuel RAF Typhoons fighting IS in Iraq and Syria, and against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Retired Col Richard Kemp said: 'Brize was attacked not by external forces but the enemy within. It was a deliberate act of sabotage.' Lord West, the former head of the Royal Navy, described the breach as 'shocking'. He added: 'Bearing in mind the very real risks of attacks from terrorists and Russian proxy state actors, it's unbelievable that such lax protection should be afforded to vital equipment and, in the final analysis, our people.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called it 'deeply concerning'. She said: 'This is not lawful protest, it's politically-motivated criminality.' A defence source said it was impossible to patrol the base '24/7, 365'. They said: 'We do have fences, cameras and barbed wire but to patrol with dogs all the time costs a huge amount of manpower and some of it comes back on spending to the Armed Forces.' 7 Terror cops are probing the security shambles that allowed pro-Palestine fanatics on scooters to break into Britain's biggest air base Credit: NC 7 PM Keir Starmer called the attack 'disgraceful' Credit: EPA After the stunt, Defence Secretary John Healey said he had ordered an investigation and a review of wider security at our bases. Counter-terror police were investigating along with Thames Valley Police and the MoD. Palestine Action has previously focused attention on Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems Ltd. In March the group claimed to have shut down its Bristol HQ using a cherry picker. Four people were charged over damage caused.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
A dozen ministers could quit over Starmer's disability welfare cuts
As many as a dozen members of government are prepared to resign rather than support Sir Keir Starmer's controversial welfare reforms, it has been claimed, as backbench critics accused ministers of betraying Labour values. A senior government figure told The Times that about 12 of their colleagues had privately indicated they would find it impossible to support the measures that are due to be voted on a week on Wednesday. Another leading opponent said that as many as 80 Labour MPs were 'holding firm' in opposition to the plans and believed the government would ultimately have to pull the vote. • No concessions on benefits reform, Starmer tells rebels 'If this goes through this will be our version of tuition fees,' they said. 'The optics of taking away money from people who find it difficult to go to the toilet are terrible.' The government has a working majority of 165, meaning that 83 Labour MPs would have to rebel for Starmer to lose a vote. Whips are warning potential rebels that they will be blacklisted for any future government job for as long as Starmer is prime minister — even if they simply abstain. Anyone openly opposing the plans faces a threat of having the whip suspended entirely amid growing concern in No 10 that the vote could slip away from the government. But one government source suggested that contingency plans to pull the vote altogether were being prepared, in case Starmer's team concluded that they did not have the numbers. Any move to back down would have implications for the government's finances as the £5 billion of savings from the changes have already been 'banked' by Rachel Reeves in the government's spending plans. Those prepared to walk away from their jobs are understood to be a mixture of junior ministers and parliamentary private secretaries — the MPs who act as the eyes and ears of cabinet ministers in Westminster. A few are said to be new MPs only elected last year. On Thursday Vicky Foxcroft, the MP for Lewisham North, resigned as a government whip and said she could not vote for the reforms. 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the government and fight for change from within,' she told Starmer. 'Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see.' • Three months' grace for claimants about to lose disability benefits MPs are due to debate changes to welfare on July 1, which include a tightening of the criteria for the personal independence payment (PIP), the main disability payment in England and Wales. Ministers also want to cut the sickness-related element of universal credit, and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. A number of MPs spoke out in support of Foxcroft after her resignation. Jonathan Brash, the MP for Hartlepool, said he had 'utmost respect for her and her principled stand here', adding: 'She's right. Our welfare system does need change, but the cuts proposed are not the right way to do it.' Connor Naismith, the MP for Crewe & Nantwich, added: 'This must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles. I agree with her that reducing the welfare bill is the right ambition, but cuts to universal credit and PIP should not be part of the solution.' Asked about the resignation on Times Radio, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary said that it was 'up to every MP to look to their conscience and vote the way that they believe is right'. 'If you can't stick with collective responsibility in government, you have to resign,' she said. 'She's done the honourable thing. It will enable her to have a voice.'
