The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has attracted considerable controversy, not just because of the subject matter of the bill, but because concern is growing that should the bill pass second reading, that there will be insufficient scrutiny. Dan Gover argues that parliament needs to take measures to ensure that this important subject gets the debate and scrutiny it deserves.
Continue reading
A Private Members’ Bill on assisted dying is set to have its second reading this month. The government has declared itself neutral on the passage of the bill. David Natzler argues that the issue is too important for the government to risk the possibility of MPs not fully debating and voting on it. He says ministers should therefore ensure that the Commons can come to a decision on second reading, be open about plans for a public consultation, involve Parliamentary Counsel in the drafting process and allow for submission of written evidence to a prospective public bill committee.
Kim Leadbeater, MP for Spen Valley, was drawn first in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), and her bill on assisted dying – the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – will be brought forward for second reading – the stage at which the House of Commons is asked to approve a bill in principle – on 29 November. The system at Westminster is such that any PMB opposed by a small but determined minority will not generally reach the Statute Book, exemplified recently by Rebecca Harris’ Daylight Saving Bill in 2010-12. The European Union (Referendum) Bill introduced by backbencher James Wharton in 2013 reached the Lords but perished there. The Leadbeater bill will be neither short nor simple, and it will evidently be controversial. If the bill does pass its second reading on 29 November, there will inevitably be demands that the government ensure that the bill does not perish for lack of parliamentary time at its later stages.
Past experience
Other comparably controversial PMBs have reached the statute book in living memory, particularly in the late 1960s on abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality and divorce reform. Their individual histories are fascinating and diverse but distinguished by one common factor: the provision of extra time by the Wilson government to the extent that they became PMBs in name only. The government generally favoured the policy being implemented, at first exercised a benevolent neutrality, and then found ‘government’ time for the bills to proceed. But the record of the 1960s does not mean that governments are obliged to find time for all high-profile PMBs which pass second reading.
What can be done now?
All that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has to date in terms of government support are repeated assurances from the Prime Minister that time would be found for a debate and decision on the general issue. That is now more or less certain to happen. If a PMB had not been presented as one of the seven ballot bills guaranteed a full day’s debate, the government might have felt obliged to bring forward a non-binding motion of its own to test the balance of opinion of the Commons, but outside the legislative process: and probably not in this first session of the parliament. It remains unclear if the Prime Minister or the government are committed to helping the bill if it passes second reading. The Cabinet is divided, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Justice Secretary all opposed to the bill. The larger parties seem similarly divided. If the bill does pass second reading, the crunch decision point will come at report stage. But there are four things that can and should be done now.
Continue reading
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill’s return to the Commons saw SNP MPs protest about their voices having been excluded from the debate. Louise Thompson explains how parliamentary procedures can indeed restrict debate for smaller opposition parties, and considers whether something ought to be done about it.
Following the first session of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill’s return to the Commons, most newspaper headlines focused of the battle between Theresa May and the group of backbench Conservative rebels seeking concessions from the government about parliament’s ‘meaningful vote’ on the Brexit deal. The front page of The National instead highlighted the lack of debate on the devolution clauses within the bill, which was limited to just 15 minutes, as well as the fact that only one SNP MP was able to speak. Just a few hours later, every single SNP MP walked out of the Commons chamber during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in protest about this issue – and the Speaker’s refusal to allow a vote that the House sit in private to discuss it. It’s not unknown for the SNP to deploy tactics like this in the chamber and it raises interesting questions about the role of smaller opposition parties in the Commons.
The parliamentary position of small ‘o’ opposition parties