Image – Wikimedia Commons: Kit Malthouse MP
Sir Keir Starmer was bombarded in the House of Commons about the process in the House of Lords around assisted suicide. During Prime Minister’s Questions Conservative former minister, Kit Malthouse, raised concerns that “technical or procedural manoeuvres outside of this House may be used to prevent Parliament reaching a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill.”
Mr Malthouse warned that such interference would undermine the primacy of the Commons and the democratic rights of the electorate. He told Sir Keir, “The Government is neutral on the Bill itself, but I presume it is not neutral on the issue of democracy or the primacy of this chamber. So could the Prime Minister please reassure the House that the decision of elected members, and indeed the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of the people we serve, will not be frustrated in this way?”
Sir Keir responded by restating the Government’s official neutrality and that Parliament as a whole must take the final decision: “The Government is neutral on the passage of the Bill. It is a matter of conscience, and there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide at the end on any changes in this chamber.” He added that while scrutiny in the Lords is “a matter for the Lords”, the Government still has a duty to ensure that any law that emerges is “workable, effective, and, of course, enforceable.”
None of this signifies any discontentment about the strict scrutiny the Bill is receiving now, that it didn’t get in the House of Commons. It’s currently undergoing detailed examination in the House of Lords, where peers have tabled more than nine hundred amendments. This is believed to be the highest number ever submitted for a Private Member’s Bill legislation. The volume of proposed changes has already triggered warnings that the Bill could run out of time before the parliamentary session ends in spring.
Supporters of legal change claim that some amendments are delaying tactics. However, many peers argue that the scale of the amendments reflects a genuine need to scrutinise a Bill that they believe is “demonstrably flawed” and lacking in essential safeguards.
SPUC’s Executive Director, Michael Robinson, affirms this by saying, “Any adversity to the Bill’s scrutiny in the House of Lords is just another attempt by the death lobby to hide the truth. Their Bill is flawed and it puts people in danger. Any legislator should be happy about an expert eye being cast over proposed laws, especially when the Upper Chamber has been given the green light that they are allowed, constitutionally, to reject this Bill.”
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
