"They claim the slow pace of considering more than 1,000 amendments means the bill will probably run out of time for a vote. In a letter to the Guardian, two former ministers, Justin Madders and Dame Nia Griffith, and another select committee chair, Debbie Abrahams, who previously opposed the substance bill have now urged peers not to deliberately filibuster it."
"Just 80 of more than 1,150 tabled amendments have been covered during three days of debate. However, some opponents of the bill say the lengthy consideration of amendments is normal for a complex issue and that it has been up to peers to attempt to address a series of significant concerns about the bill, including from key professional bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists."
"They said the Lords often did good work scrutinising legislation, but that an unelected house should not have the final say. The fact that it is unelected can only be tolerated in a democracy provided its members accept that it is for the House of Commons to have the last word on what becomes law and what doesn't in this country, the letter said."
Senior opponents of assisted dying legislation urged peers not to deliberately filibuster the bill, warning that prolonged delays risked the Lords losing democratic legitimacy. Many supporters accept the bill faces a real danger of running out of parliamentary time in the Lords because of more than 1,150 tabled amendments and slow consideration. Only 80 amendments were covered during three days of debate. Opponents say lengthy consideration is normal for complex legislation and that peers are addressing significant concerns, including input from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is also anger over the Lords blocking the employment rights bill for the third time. Several MPs expressed concern that the unelected house should accept the Commons has the final say, and that resorting to blocking procedures effectively breaks that convention.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]