New poll suggests public support for Lords voting down assisted suicide Bill
|
A new poll published in The Independent has revealed that 70% of
those who hold an opinion believe that Peers have every right to
vote against non-government legislation if they consider that it
poses a significant risk to vulnerable lives. The poll, conducted
by Whitestone Insight of 2,071 adults, found that only 1 in 5 (20%)
believe that Peers should not vote down legislation introduced as a
Private Members' Bill even if they think it could cause harm to
the...Request free trial
A new poll published in The Independent has revealed that 70% of those who hold an opinion believe that Peers have every right to vote against non-government legislation if they consider that it poses a significant risk to vulnerable lives. The poll, conducted by Whitestone Insight of 2,071 adults, found that only 1 in 5 (20%) believe that Peers should not vote down legislation introduced as a Private Members' Bill even if they think it could cause harm to the vulnerable. Earlier this month, the lead sponsor of the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer, called on Peers not to reject the Bill, claiming the public would be "unimpressed" if the Lords attempt to block the Bill. The polling released over the weekend refutes this claim. Background The poll was released a week after the second day of Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Lords. The Lords can still reject the assisted suicide Bill. Since the Bill is not a Government Bill and was not part of a manifesto promise, the Lords are constitutionally entitled to block or heavily amend the Bill.
Sky Deputy Political Editor Sam Coates noted that even a senior Government figure who supports the Bill admitted that “the chances of it passing are worse than 50/50.” Lord Falconer, long-time proponent of the legalisation of assisted suicide (who has attempted to change the law on assisted suicide on seven previous occasions), has said it is not the role of the Lords to reject this Bill, despite the fact that, as a Lord, he has voted against numerous Bills with Commons approval. In an interview on the BBC's Today programme after the Leadbeater Bill narrowly passed Third Reading in June, Lord Falconer was asked whether the role of the Lords was to "ultimately uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with". He replied "That's correct". He reinforced his position on this during his House of Lords Second Reading speech on the Bill, saying: “The Bill has been passed by the Commons. The decision on whether to change the law in our democracy should be for the elected representatives. We should improve where we can, but we should respect the primacy of the Commons.” However, as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Lord Falconer has not always abided by the principle that the role of the Lords is to uphold the decisions of the Commons. In fact, on at least six occasions, Lord Falconer has either directly opposed Bills approved by the House of Commons or sought to amend legislation in ways not approved by the Commons. Several other supporters of the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill have made similar claims. Details of the claims that have been made are provided at the end of this press release. Baroness Grey-Thompson, the former Paralympian and leading disability campaigner, said: "Despite attempts to suggest otherwise, it seems the public are aware and support the ability of the Lords to reject this Bill should we think it necessary. The Bill is not a Government Bill and did not appear in any manifesto at the last election, so the Salisbury Convention does not apply". “The most vulnerable in our society are entitled to our unwavering protection and the best quality care - something not provided by this Bill. If this is not possible within the confines of the Bill, we will not hesitate to say so". Former minister for disabled people, Lord Harper said: "It is striking that, of those who take a position, the majority of people would support the House of Lords rejecting the assisted suicide Bill should it become necessary. The constitutional duty of the House in scrutinising this poorly drafted Bill is perfectly clear”. “If it cannot be improved sufficiently, it is our responsibility to ensure it does not become law. This is not a manifesto Government Bill, and we should not treat it as such". Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive Officer at Right To Life UK, a charity that opposes the introduction of assisted suicide and euthanasia, and campaigns instead for greater investment in palliative care, said: “Despite attempts to suggest otherwise, the Lords can and indeed should reject this Bill, and the majority of the public are not opposed to their doing so". "Although the Bill passed the Commons, momentum remains with its opponents. Support collapsed between Second and Third Reading from a 55-vote majority to only 23. The Bill left the Commons lacking a majority, with fewer than half of all MPs backing the Bill at its final stage". “The most vulnerable in our society are entitled to our unwavering protection and the best quality care, not a pathway to assisted suicide. Evidence from abroad shows that, if this legislation becomes law, large numbers of vulnerable people nearing the end of life would be pressured or coerced into ending their lives”. “With the NHS described by our Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, as ‘broken', and every year, 100,000 people still dying without the palliative care they need, this assisted suicide legislation is a disaster waiting to happen”. ENDS Further information Several other supporters of the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill have made similar claims to Lord Falconer regarding the ability of the Lords to reject a Private Members' Bill that has come from the House of Commons:
|