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
Since David Natzler last wrote for this blog on the options available to parliament when it returns this week, the Commons and Lords have been making their arrangements for a ‘virtual parliament’. In this post, David discusses the plans put forward so far and the obstacles to their implementation. He argues that the most difficult question, if a virtual parliament is approved, is how MPs and peers will vote.
In the first part of this blog I want to record three particular aspects of the way in which proposals for virtual parliamentary sittings have developed since my blog of Sunday 5 April. In the second part, I look ahead at likely and desirable outcomes. I conclude with some further thoughts on voting.
The expanded role of the House of Commons Commission
The House of Commons Commission held virtual meetings on Monday 6 and Thursday 16 April. At its 6 April meeting it warned that any special arrangements for the House’s return on 21 April would need to start in the preceding week. At its 16 April meeting the Commission endorsed plans for the use of Zoom to allow up to 120 members to take part in interrogatory virtual proceedings, and for up to 50 members to take part in the Chamber. This hybrid arrangement will need the approval of the House on 21 April.
The Commission is a statutory body which employs the staff of the House and oversees its expenditure. Its assent is required for new services, including digital services and equipment, such as new screens for the Commons chamber or new software. It has no authority to determine how the proceedings of the House should be conducted. But it fills a vacuum in the House of Commons, bringing together for formal decision making the Speaker, who chairs the Commission, the Leader of the House, the Shadow Leader of the House and a senior SNP member, Pete Wishart. These members can be expected to represent their parties, so if the Commission is willing to fund and support the preparatory work for a scheme of virtual participation, and set out in considerable detail how it should work in practice, then it must be assumed that the party leaders support it, at least in outline. As the Clerk of the House and the Director General are also members of the Commission, its proposals can be expected to be capable of implementation. To that extent the Commission has been acting as a substitute for what is missing at Westminster, a House Business Committee or Bureau, as is common in many parliaments and was recommended by the Wright Committee in 2009. Continue reading
We may not yet know the result of the election, but we do know that we will have a new parliament. David Natzler and David Beamish explain what will happen when the new parliament commences next week. No matter the outcome of today’s vote, certain processes will need to be followed: parliament will need to be officially opened, MPs will need to be sworn in, and committees will need to be re-established — and their members and chairs must be elected.
The dates
The first days of a new parliament follow a well-trodden path, and the surest guide to what will happen is usually to look up what happened last time, in June 2017. However, much depends on the political context. And we will not know that context until the early hours of Friday 13 December at the earliest. All we know for sure is that the new parliament will meet on Tuesday 17 December, and that if the current Prime Minister returns, the State Opening – the start of the new session – will be only two days later, on Thursday 19 December. If there is a hung parliament, the State Opening could be delayed. Continue reading
Today sees the start of two days of debate in the House of Lords as the EU (Withdrawal) Bill has its second reading stage. Ahead of that debate, the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords has produced a report on the legislation. In this blogpost Baroness Taylor, who chairs the committee, explains that the Bill as currently constituted has major flaws that could cause serious constitutional problems if left unamended.
Brexit presents an unprecedented constitutional challenge for the UK. In order to achieve a smooth departure from the European Union, it is essential that there is legal certainty and continuity on exit day. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill) is the government’s attempt to achieve this. It attempts to deliver certainty by preserving existing EU law as it currently applies in the UK and converting it into domestic law. This is a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and it poses significant challenges for both parliament and the government.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee gave early consideration to these challenges in its ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and delegated powers report and its interim report on the Withdrawal Bill itself. We are disappointed that the Government has not addressed our earlier concerns and recommendations and, as it stands, the Bill raises a series of profound, wide-ranging and interlocking constitutional concerns. The Committee’s latest report, published yesterday, explores the constitutional deficiencies of the Bill in detail, and offers a number of constructive solutions to improve this essential legislation.
At present, the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in a number of ways. The creation of ‘retained EU law’ (existing EU law in a new domestic form) will result in problematic uncertainties and ambiguities as to what it contains and how it relates to other domestic law. The Bill fails to give sufficient clarity and guidance to the courts as to how retained EU law is to be interpreted after the UK leaves the European Union and it seeks, unsuccessfully and erroneously, to perpetuate the ‘supremacy’ of EU law post-Brexit. Continue reading