Georgia L Gilholy: The assisted suicide Bill doesn’t deserve special treatment
What's the endgame here?
Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.
Labour claims the Government has no stance on this sloppy legislation, so why is it offering it special treatment?
In Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s introductory speech at the assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords last September, he suggested that he wanted the Bill to spend only four days in Committee Stage, seemingly implying this would be sufficient time for the Bill to be scrutinised.
But the purpose of a Committee Stage in the House of Lords is to scrutinise a Bill line by line, testing every clause and whether it should be included in the Bill, as well as tabling amendments to draw out the policy intent behind provisions and test arguments which may be returned to at Report for decision. Importantly, unlike the House of Commons, in the House of Lords, there is no set time limit for this. Lords’ business managers may set out an informal allocation of time, but there is no hard deadline, and timetables can be flexible.
Theoretically, peers can and should be free to debate and consider all amendments deemed necessary to fulfil their duty to scrutinise legislation effectively. Unlike Government legislation, which, with the appropriate motion laid, can carry over to the next session, once this parliamentary session ends in the late spring, Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), which have not completed all stages of their consideration and received Royal Assent, will fall.
Is this why Lord Falconer sought such a compressed Committee Stage?
Four days is a highly ambitious target for a Bill of such substantial moral, ethical, and societal importance, without even accounting for its length and complexity (56 pages, 59 Clauses, and 3 Schedules). However, the situation has shifted, with the Government announcing in November seven additional sitting Fridays for the Bill, on top of the three already scheduled, effectively devoting almost every Friday in the first quarter of this year to the assisted suicide Bill. For a PMB, this is unprecedented and, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chief Whip in the Lords to appear fair to all sides, raises real concerns about the Government’s purported neutrality.
Charitably, one could say that the Government has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place, with a PMB passed by the Commons with the clear implicit support of the Prime Minister butting against the standard protocol and procedures in the Lords, which lend themselves to interrogation, not expeditious passage of contentious (or, indeed, any) law. However, while ministers insist the Government remains neutral on assisted suicide, its actions risk undermining that claim. Peers, who already work long hours and often travel significant distances to attend sittings, must now meet most Fridays ahead …
What's the endgame here?
Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.
Labour claims the Government has no stance on this sloppy legislation, so why is it offering it special treatment?
In Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s introductory speech at the assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords last September, he suggested that he wanted the Bill to spend only four days in Committee Stage, seemingly implying this would be sufficient time for the Bill to be scrutinised.
But the purpose of a Committee Stage in the House of Lords is to scrutinise a Bill line by line, testing every clause and whether it should be included in the Bill, as well as tabling amendments to draw out the policy intent behind provisions and test arguments which may be returned to at Report for decision. Importantly, unlike the House of Commons, in the House of Lords, there is no set time limit for this. Lords’ business managers may set out an informal allocation of time, but there is no hard deadline, and timetables can be flexible.
Theoretically, peers can and should be free to debate and consider all amendments deemed necessary to fulfil their duty to scrutinise legislation effectively. Unlike Government legislation, which, with the appropriate motion laid, can carry over to the next session, once this parliamentary session ends in the late spring, Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), which have not completed all stages of their consideration and received Royal Assent, will fall.
Is this why Lord Falconer sought such a compressed Committee Stage?
Four days is a highly ambitious target for a Bill of such substantial moral, ethical, and societal importance, without even accounting for its length and complexity (56 pages, 59 Clauses, and 3 Schedules). However, the situation has shifted, with the Government announcing in November seven additional sitting Fridays for the Bill, on top of the three already scheduled, effectively devoting almost every Friday in the first quarter of this year to the assisted suicide Bill. For a PMB, this is unprecedented and, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chief Whip in the Lords to appear fair to all sides, raises real concerns about the Government’s purported neutrality.
Charitably, one could say that the Government has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place, with a PMB passed by the Commons with the clear implicit support of the Prime Minister butting against the standard protocol and procedures in the Lords, which lend themselves to interrogation, not expeditious passage of contentious (or, indeed, any) law. However, while ministers insist the Government remains neutral on assisted suicide, its actions risk undermining that claim. Peers, who already work long hours and often travel significant distances to attend sittings, must now meet most Fridays ahead …
Georgia L Gilholy: The assisted suicide Bill doesn’t deserve special treatment
What's the endgame here?
Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.
Labour claims the Government has no stance on this sloppy legislation, so why is it offering it special treatment?
In Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s introductory speech at the assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords last September, he suggested that he wanted the Bill to spend only four days in Committee Stage, seemingly implying this would be sufficient time for the Bill to be scrutinised.
But the purpose of a Committee Stage in the House of Lords is to scrutinise a Bill line by line, testing every clause and whether it should be included in the Bill, as well as tabling amendments to draw out the policy intent behind provisions and test arguments which may be returned to at Report for decision. Importantly, unlike the House of Commons, in the House of Lords, there is no set time limit for this. Lords’ business managers may set out an informal allocation of time, but there is no hard deadline, and timetables can be flexible.
Theoretically, peers can and should be free to debate and consider all amendments deemed necessary to fulfil their duty to scrutinise legislation effectively. Unlike Government legislation, which, with the appropriate motion laid, can carry over to the next session, once this parliamentary session ends in the late spring, Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), which have not completed all stages of their consideration and received Royal Assent, will fall.
Is this why Lord Falconer sought such a compressed Committee Stage?
Four days is a highly ambitious target for a Bill of such substantial moral, ethical, and societal importance, without even accounting for its length and complexity (56 pages, 59 Clauses, and 3 Schedules). However, the situation has shifted, with the Government announcing in November seven additional sitting Fridays for the Bill, on top of the three already scheduled, effectively devoting almost every Friday in the first quarter of this year to the assisted suicide Bill. For a PMB, this is unprecedented and, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chief Whip in the Lords to appear fair to all sides, raises real concerns about the Government’s purported neutrality.
Charitably, one could say that the Government has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place, with a PMB passed by the Commons with the clear implicit support of the Prime Minister butting against the standard protocol and procedures in the Lords, which lend themselves to interrogation, not expeditious passage of contentious (or, indeed, any) law. However, while ministers insist the Government remains neutral on assisted suicide, its actions risk undermining that claim. Peers, who already work long hours and often travel significant distances to attend sittings, must now meet most Fridays ahead …
0 Comments
0 Shares
52 Views
0 Reviews
