With just three weeks to go before the assisted dying bill returns to the Commons, it is worth looking at what happens next—and what is going on behind the scenes. Obviously, the biggest danger to the bill is if enough MPs change their minds from last year. But there’s little evidence of that happening and the potential pitfalls are a lot more technical, and all about running out of time.
Private members’ bills usually have their report stage, when MPs vote on the committee’s amendments and any new ones, and third reading—the vote on the whole bill as amended—in the same five-hour sitting. If they haven’t got it all done by half past two in the afternoon it is often curtains for the proposed law. It goes to the back of the queue with other private members’ bills waiting for their report stage. An Institute for Government report says: “This can, in practice, spell the end of the bill’s passage, particularly late in the session when there are a large number of bills waiting. Attempts to talk out a bill are, therefore, most likely at this stage.”
(This comes from its handy guide, which I am cribbing from—although the dates in the piece are now wrong, as it was written before the date got shoved back into May.)
How likely is this? No one except, perhaps, the Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle, knows. For it is up to the speaker which amendments he accepts—all, none or somewhere in between—and how he bundles them together. Given that uncertainty there’s a general expectation that if more time is needed it will be found. This could mean either that the report stage will be on 16th May and the third reading on 13th June or, if the report stage needs even more time, it could run across both those dates, pushing the big vote back until 20th June.
Then, if the bill does clear these hurdles it goes to the Lords. The number crunchers are fairly certain a majority of peers are in favour so that is not the danger. The problem could come from new amendments. The Lords doesn’t tend to amend private members’ bills, because that is likely to mean the bill will die.
Indeed, the government’s own guidelines say: “Given the limited amount of parliamentary time available for private members’ bills, this is likely to kill the bill. Time for private members’ bills is even more limited in the Lords, so departments should contact the Government Whips’ Office in the Lords to discuss Lords handling in good time before the bill reaches the Lords, and discuss any proposed amendments with the Government Whips’ Office in both Houses. Government time is given to private members’ bills in the Commons only in the most exceptional circumstances.” In this case, of course, killing the bill is exactly what many desire—and I’ve heard of one former cabinet minister loudly proclaiming that is his intention.
He is likely to be thwarted simply because the conventional wisdom relies on the supposition that the bill would fail because there would be no time for the Commons to consider new Lords amendments. But it is widely expected that the government will extend this session—the next King’s Speech will probably not be until spring next year, giving plenty of time to consider the amendments. But it all means this will be a long, strung-out process strewn with unexpected obstacles.
