Assisted suicide supporters have accused Peers in the House of Lords of wasting time due to the time spent scrutinising each amendment, despite the fact that during the most recent Committee day, each amendment received less than six minutes of discussion.
The assisted suicide Bill returned to the House of Lords on Friday 5 December, as it continued its Committee stage scrutiny. An analysis of the speeches completed by Right To Life UK’s Policy Team found that 47 amendments were debated during the 4 hours and 40 minutes long session, meaning that each amendment received just less than six minutes of scrutiny.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for those with a prognosis of six months or less.
Despite the modest duration of scrutiny each amendment has in fact received, eight supporters of assisted suicide wrote a letter to fellow Peers suggesting both the number of amendments tabled to the Bill and the duration of discussion were improper. “We appeal to colleagues across the House”, they write, “to use the remainder of our time available fairly”. Along with other supporters of assisted suicide, including Bill sponsors Kim Leadbeater MP and Lord Falconer, the signatories of the letter suggest that the ultimate decision in whether or not to pass the Bill belongs to the Commons, rather than the Lords.
However, numerous constitutional experts and the House of Lords’ own Constitutional Committee have made clear that this is not the case.
As the Hansard Society explain, “Since the assisted dying bill is neither a Government Bill nor a manifesto commitment, the Salisbury Convention does not apply in this case”.
Baroness Grey-Thompson, the former Paralympian and leading disability campaigner, said, “The Bill is not a Government Bill and did not appear in any manifesto at the last election, so the Salisbury Convention does not apply”.
Dr Philip Murray, Assistant Professor in Law at Robinson College, Cambridge University, took exception to the letter, saying, “This isn’t, then, a letter from disinterested Peers making a point based on constitutional principle. It’s almost exclusively from long-time supporters of assisted suicide, keen to get this Bill through. And they’re misrepresenting the true constitutional position to do so”.
Legal expert Lord Wolfson also criticised the letter, saying, “There are various limits on the Lords’ powers, both legal and conventional. If it were true that ‘Respect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacy’ [as the letter states], none of them would be necessary. This letter both overstates and misstates the constitutional position”.
Danny Kruger MP, a vocal opponent of the assisted suicide Bill, said that if the Bill failed to become law, “that’s the fault of the bill itself, not of the Lords, who I think are doing their job”.
Commentator Fleur Meston also criticised this, saying, “I counted 5 attempts from pro-assisted suicide peers to curtail debate, rush it and move it along quickly today. With just under six minutes of debate for each amendment, many dealt with crucial issues in the Bill, and if anything, deserved more time”.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “At Committee Stage of the Bill on Friday, each amendment was given an average of just under six minutes of debate. It is simply not the case that Peers are wasting time, deliberately or not. If anything, these amendments are being rushed. The large number of amendments indicates just how poorly drafted the Bill was when it left the Commons”.
“The signatories of this letter are pushing the same tired and untrue canard that Lord Falconer and Kim Leadbeater have been doing almost from the moment the assisted suicide Bill entered the House of Lords – that it would somehow be improper for the Lords not to pass this Bill. This is nonsense”.
“This Bill is a Private Members’ Bill. It is not a Government Bill, nor was it a manifesto commitment, meaning, as confirmed by numerous constitutional experts and the House of Lords’ own Constitutional Committee, it is perfectly within the remit of the Lords in the course of their scrutiny to block it entirely, should they decide they have a responsibility to do so to protect vulnerable people”.
