The sponsor of the assisted suicide Bill, Lord Falconer, has introduced a motion calling for more time in Parliament to be devoted to the assisted suicide Bill.
The motion was introduced in the House of Lords on Thursday, 8 January. While the motion was accepted, it is non-binding, which means the Government is not committed to implementing it.
Significant additional time has already been allocated for scrutiny of the assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords, with the Government in November allocating seven additional sitting Fridays for the Bill on top of those which had already been scheduled, a decision which will require Peers to sit every Friday in January, and on most other Fridays before Easter, including 27 March, when the House was supposed to be in recess.
Lord Falconer’s motion appeared to assume that the House of Lords is required to return the Bill to the Commons, despite the fact that Peers are under no such obligation. As the Hansard Society explains, “Since the assisted dying bill is neither a Government Bill nor a manifesto commitment, the Salisbury Convention does not apply in this case”. Any additional time that the Lords sets aside for the assisted suicide Bill would come at the expense of time being devoted to Government business that could be used to improve public services, for example, and aid the entire country.
It has been reported that proceedings for the assisted suicide Bill being debated in the House of Lords could already cost the British taxpayer almost £2 million. This amount only includes the income tax-free allowance payable to Peers; real costs, when including operational expenses like security, are likely much higher. If even more time is made available for this Bill, British taxpayers will end up footing an even larger bill.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “It would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to respond to Lord Falconer’s motion by granting the Bill even more time. Such motions are commonplace and inconsequential. It was not a Business of the House motion, and any pressure arising from it should be ignored”.
“Allowing a backbench peer to take control of the order paper in this way would create an unwelcome precedent that could lead to chaos down the line. The Government should reflect on the potential implications for its agenda and for parliamentary conventions of heeding the motion”.
“Giving the Bill extra time beyond the 10am-3pm Friday slot usually reserved for Private Members’ Bills would further suggest the Government is secretly paving the way for the Bill’s passage by ignoring procedural norms. Bullying and sleight of hand tactics must be resisted”.
“If peers are concerned about the reputation of the House of Lords if the Bill were to fail to complete its stages, they should reflect that the House’s reputation would be damaged far more by rushing scrutiny and passing a dangerous Bill with devastating societal consequences”.
“Peers should disregard today’s motion, which is little more than a meaningless stunt with no binding force that seeks to distract from the real problems with the assisted suicide Bill. It is a smokescreen tabled out of desperation in an attempt to salvage a failing and flawed Bill”.
