The Prohibition of Death in Parliament

Section 1. Short Title and Mortal Findings

This Act may be cited as the “Parliamentary Mortality Prevention Act” or the “You Can’t Die Here, It’s Against the Rules Act.”

REAL ABSURDITY NOTICE: It has been widely reported that dying in the Houses of Parliament is illegal, supposedly because the Palace of Westminster is a Royal Palace and anyone who dies there would be entitled to a state funeral. While legal historians debate whether this is technically codified law or longstanding convention, it has been voted one of the most absurd laws in the United Kingdom, a country that also regulates suspicious salmon handling (see R.A. 003).

Section 2. The Logistics of Prohibiting Death

Congress has examined this alleged prohibition and presents the following observations:

(a) Death, by its nature, is not a voluntary act and therefore presents unique enforcement challenges when classified as a legal violation.

(b) The alleged rationale — that dying in a Royal Palace entitles the deceased to a state funeral at public expense — suggests that the law was motivated less by concern for human mortality and more by concern for the Treasury.

(c) It remains unclear what penalty attaches to a violation, as the offender is, by definition, unavailable for prosecution.

(d) The law, if enforced, would require Parliament to maintain either an extremely efficient emergency medical response team or a very fast hearse.

Section 3. Enforcement Scenarios

3(a). The Preventive Approach

Under a preventive enforcement model, Parliamentary authorities would be required to:

1. Screen all members and visitors for “likelihood of imminent death” upon entry
2. Monitor vital signs during particularly long debates (which have been known to bore people nearly to death, though never technically across the line)
3. Maintain a “Death Risk Advisory System,” color-coded from Green (“Feeling Fine”) to Red (“Perhaps You Should Step Outside”)
4. Station medical personnel at all exits, prepared to transport anyone showing signs of decline to a non-Royal location before the situation becomes legally complicated

3(b). The Reactive Approach

Should prevention fail, authorities must:

1. Immediately determine whether the individual is merely unconscious (legal) or deceased (illegal)
2. If deceased, rapidly transport the body across the threshold of the palace, at which point the death technically occurred “outside” and the state funeral obligation evaporates
3. File an incident report classifying the event as “unauthorized cessation of vital functions on Crown property”
4. Update the building’s safety record, which presumably has a column for this

3(c). The Existential Approach

Accept that the law is unenforceable, acknowledge the absurdity, and move on. This approach has been the de facto policy for centuries.

Section 4. Health and Safety Implications

4(a). Parliamentary Risk Factors

Congress notes that the Houses of Parliament contain several features that make death-prevention challenging:

• The average age of the House of Lords is “venerable”
• Debates can last upward of 12 hours, during which sitting continuously is a known health risk
• The Strangers’ Bar serves alcohol to people who are about to make laws, which seems dangerous in multiple ways
• The building itself is over 800 years old and has survived fires, bombings, and the English weather, and may itself be in violation of several modern safety codes

4(b). Recommended Modifications

Should Parliament wish to enforce this law in good faith, the following modifications are suggested:

1. Install defibrillators every 15 feet, like a cardiac version of fire extinguishers
2. Replace the traditional green leather benches with hospital-grade recliners
3. Add a mandatory health screening before each session, including a note from one’s physician reading “Fit to legislate without dying”
4. Place the nearest hospital on permanent standby, which, given the current state of the NHS, may require its own legislation

Section 5. Applicability to the United States Congress

5(a). Current U.S. Policy

Congress notes that there is no equivalent prohibition on dying in the United States Capitol, largely because:

• The Capitol is not a palace, despite how some members behave
• No member of Congress is entitled to a state funeral by virtue of where they expire
• American legislators have generally preferred to let their careers die in Congress rather than themselves

5(b). Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that:

(a) Legislating against death is peak legislative hubris, and Congress respects it enormously.

(b) If Congress ever runs out of things to regulate, it will know it has truly reached the end.

(c) The United Kingdom is thanked for this contribution to legal comedy, and is invited to keep going.

---

This commemorative resolution was introduced on October 31 (Halloween) for thematic purposes. It was approved by a voice vote described in the Congressional Record as “spirited.” The resolution was briefly held up when a member asked whether ghosts in the Capitol would constitute a posthumous violation, a question the Parliamentarian declined to answer on the grounds of “not wanting to.”