Keir Starmer was strongly in favour of last year’s Assisted Dying Bill. Andy Burnham is not. People have assumed that, because of his Catholic family background, the new Prime Minister would automatically be opposed. He is opposed but not because of his Catholicism. He simply feels that the existing laws should not be changed until a proper funding package has been introduced for the many under-funded hospices in the UK. Such a package is not on the current political horizon. He is, he says, in favour of Assisted Dying in principle.
So, there is a change at the top but does this matter ? The new Bill, brought forward by Lauren Edwards MP, needs to be debated in Private Members’ Time and all MPs, including the Prime Minister, are entitled to a free, un-whipped vote. But the answer is that, Yes, it does matter because the Bill is likely to need some Government Time in order to succeed. Under a rather weird technicality, the new Bill must reach the House of Lords in a form that is “textually identical” to the previous (failed) Bill from the last session. Only on that basis can it, essentially, be forced through the Lords this time.
“Textually identical” mean it will also be full of imperfections. In the Lords itself, last time, the main supporter of the Bill, Lord Falconer, moved 77 amendments to make it better. For any of those improvements to be included this time, many of which had received widespread agreement, they would need to be added as “suggested amendments” by the Commons. But they can’t be added in Private Members’ time. So Government Time will be needed. And that will need the consent of the new Prime Minister.
With me so far ? Then join the growing band of bewildered people who wonder out loud how we British can claim our Parliamentary system to be a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
