Category Archives: planning

Law and religion roundup – 14th September

Posted on by
1

Assisted Dying – The role of the House of Lords

Last week we noted that House of Lords was to debate the core aims of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill across two days on Friday 12 and Friday 19 September, the second date being within the House of Lords recess period allocated for Party Conferences. On 11 September 2025, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, (HL Paper 177); this states:

“We draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as a private members’ bill, this Bill did not undergo pre-legislative scrutiny and that impact assessments issued by the Government, which is not the sponsor of the Bill, were issued late during the Commons process. The degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government bill. This is especially concerning given the subject matter of the Bill.

The role of the House of Lords

There has been some debate as to the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising this Bill, especially over whether it is appropriate for the House to debate the principle of assisted dying which has now been accepted by the Commons.

8. As the Bill is not a government bill, the Salisbury-Addison convention, which is that “bills foreshadowed in a government’s manifesto are given a second reading in the Lords, are not subject to wrecking amendments and are passed in reasonable time”, does not apply.[ref. 4]. Therefore, there is no reason for the usual scrutiny role of the House to be constrained.

9. We have previously concluded that the two Houses “have different, complementary roles, which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the legislative process”.[ref. 5]. Given that this Bill is a private members’ bill and that it deals with a morally significant subject, close and detailed scrutiny by both Houses is particularly important.

10. The House of Lords plays an important role in the legislative process. It is constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it.”

The first day’s day of the debate is reported here. An analysis of the speeches by Right To Life UK Policy Team indicated that of the 86 peers who took a position on the Bill in their speeches, 58 (67%) spoke in opposition to the Bill and 28 (33%) spoke in favour.  A further three Peers did not take a position (This accords with accounts of other observers). At the Second Reading in the House of Commons, a majority of MPs spoke in favour of the Bill (25 spoke in favour, 21 spoke in opposition). 

Of relevance to on-going proceedings, Matthew England and Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society have published A guide to the legislative process in the House of Lords. 

A crem is a crem is a crem? – update

In the roundup on 3 August we posted a note on Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] UKSC 32, in which the Supreme Court held unanimously that for the purposes of section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902, “crematorium” meant a “building fitted with appliances for the purpose of burning human remains” (ie the crematory building itself).

The Ministry of Justice subsequently wrote to the representative bodies of the funerals industry to update the Government’s guidance on the siting and planning of crematoria following the Supreme Court judgment. Paragraph 18 of its guidance published in 1978 reads as follows:

“18. By Section 2 of the [Cremation] Act, ‘crematorium’ means ‘any building fitted with appliances for the purpose of burning human remains, and shall include everything incidental or ancillary thereto’. The Department is advised that the crematorium buildings, chapels and parts of the grounds used for the disposal of ashes come within this definition, but not ornamental gardens, carriageways or houses for staff.”

The Ministry of Justice has now withdrawn that paragraph. [With thanks to the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management].

Upcoming event

Quick links

And finally…

This week, a new Banksy artwork appeared on the wall of the Royal Courts of Justice in London – showing a judge attacking a protester – in an apparent reference to the arrest of hundreds of demonstrators. (Unfortunately, the judge was attacking the protester with a gavel.) The artwork, which was on the Queen’s Building at the courts complex, was soon concealed by large sheets of black plastic and two metal barriers.

A spokesperson for HM Courts and Tribunals Service said that it will be removed in accordance with the rules about listed buildings: “The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character.” (And, of course, it’s presumably criminal damage.)