Reaction to the murdering pensioners in hospital bill

 Nikki da Costa on X (not formatted, not abridged, as it was):

Something very odd is happening behind the scenes on Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill.

Multiple sources say Falconer is talking up with Govt bypassing the House of Lords entirely using the Parliament Acts — and has been planning this since the summer

That's why their first move, within hours of Committee starting, was to cry foul. They WANTED to escalate. And why language since then has hinted at something imminent: e.g. Kim Leadbeater to Times Radio: “I’m looking at ways..." and Paul Brand below:

Paul Brand

@PaulBrandITV

At close of debate, the Lords have only managed to get through one group of amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill today, representing 21 amendments in total.

Meanwhile, 82 new amendments were added in the last week alone.

Lords can't debate them as fast as they're being added.

At this rate the bill will be talked out by peers, unless something changes.

Now hearing some peers being told: “Accept our bill — or we’ll ram it through unchanged next session using the Parliament Acts and you will not have a further say”. Classic bullying. But here’s why that threat is nowhere near as scary as they want you to think:

The Parliament Acts are not a nuclear button. They’re a safety valve protecting Lords’ right to scrutinise. Wakeham Commission: because there is no check on Parliament, “the will of Parliament must be the product of careful consideration and debate… not wilfully [exercised]"

To force this bill through with the Parliament Acts next session, Falconer/Leadbeater would need: • A new sponsor to win top 7 in the Private Members’ Bill ballot (pure luck) • A fresh Second Reading majority with MPs no longer able to hide behind “the Lords will fix it”

• A majority for a procedure motion to skip Committee & Report stage • A majority to override an inevitable opposition motion blocking use of the Parliament Acts • And a lot more time on Commons sitting Fridays to handle the alternative procedure for amendments (see below)

Remember: the Third Reading majority was only 23, with 32 abstentions. Next time there is no “loyalty to the PM” bonus and no one else to pass the buck to. Many MPs will run a mile rather than own an unchanged, widely criticised bill

And then there’s the fact that MPs can table unlimited “suggested amendments” that are OUTSIDE normal scope rules (see OPC guidance) That's an uncontrolled situation for the Govt! The Lords then have a chance to consider them, and to consider the Bill in the normal fashion.

3.17 Scope The government's suggested amendment to the Bill that became the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 raised a question about the scope of the Bill. It was thought that the clause in question would have beer

it

Go to next post directly from here!

simply been brought forward as an amendment in the Co

ed

by the Lords in the first session and had been extensively discussed in the Commons as a Lords amendment. It was brought forward as a suggested amendment in the Commons in the second session. It is thought that the usual rules of scope do not apply to motions for suggested amendments.

We're talking another year at least in the second session to examine the Bill and new proposals. And the Govt under the same obligation to make time in the Lords in the second session as they make in this session or be seen to block the Lords from complying with a legal duty!

Lords duty to consider

	3.28 Section 2(4) places the Lords under a duty to consider any suggested amendments. It is
	difficult to see how, in practice, the duty on the Lords to consider suggested amendments is
	enforceable although their Lordships would be unlikely lightly to decide to defy a statutory
duty.

If it should reach statute books it will not be until mid 2027 and the Bill will not commence before a General Election. Making assisted dying a toxic election issue

Does anyone see No 10 or Labour colleagues *loving* that in addition to another two years of this fight? That they’re going to clap the MP on the back who resurrects this Bill? That they will love Starmer for doing this to them? With no electoral mandate to protect them?

So my message to Their Lordships: Do NOT be intimidated by the sabre rattling. The Parliament Acts exist to protect serious scrutiny, not to let campaigners bulldoze legitimate concerns from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and dozens of disability groups. Stand firm.

The Parliament Acts are not as simple as Falconer and Leadbeater will want to present and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel put out detailed guidance in July 2019. (Please forgive the lack of ALT text - thread was deleting when I tried to insert) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d67944340f0b607c4babb0f/Section-2-of-the-Parliament-Act-1911-July-2019.pdf

The Parliament Acts are not as simple as Falconer and Leadbeater will want to present and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel put out detailed guidance in July 2019. (Please forgive the lack of ALT text - thread was deleting when I tried to insert)

https://t.co/IVXfZ5rs2G

Also well worth - as with all the series - listening to

@HansardSociety

podcast with Sir David Beamish, the former Clerk of the Parliaments, where he is quite clear that what we are seeing on this Bill is in line with the strength of concern.