Assisted Dying Supporters Threaten Rare Parliamentary Tactic to Override Lords Opposition
Proponents of assisted dying legislation have issued a stark warning, threatening to deploy a rare parliamentary procedure to force through a law permitting the practice, despite mounting concerns over its safety. The move aims to outflank opponents who have slowed the bill's progress to a near standstill in the House of Lords.
Lord Falconer's Warning on the Parliament Act
Lord Falconer has explicitly stated that the Parliament Act could be invoked to override what he describes as 'filibustering' from peers regarding the The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This drastic measure would be considered if the bill fails to gain approval before the King's Speech in May, highlighting the escalating tensions between the Commons and the Lords.
The Parliament Act, established over a century ago, is designed to limit the power of unelected peers to block laws that have been endorsed by elected MPs. It allows for bills that have been supported by the Commons in two successive sessions, yet rejected by the Lords, to pass into law without requiring Lords approval. Historically, this act has been used only seven times since its inception in 1911, and never before on a private member's bill such as the assisted dying legislation.
Lords Scrutiny and Safety Concerns
The bill's advancement has been significantly hampered in the Lords, with opponents arguing they are merely fulfilling their duty to scrutinise legislation they deem unsafe in its current form. Critics contend that the bill requires substantial strengthening to protect vulnerable individuals, with some peers tabling over 1,000 amendments—a record number for a private member's bill—which supporters label as deliberate obstruction.
Nikki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs for two prime ministers and a vocal critic, emphasised that peers are 'doing their best to patch these holes' in the bill. She pointed out that the legislation has prompted two royal colleges, psychiatrists and physicians, to break four years of neutrality, stating that while they remain neutral on principle, the bill is unsafe. Da Costa argued, 'This Bill is dangerous for the vulnerable and people will be failed,' urging the Lords to continue their scrutiny rather than wave it through.
Defence and Dialogue from Both Sides
In response, Lord Falconer rejected claims of bullying, asserting that while he does not believe the bill is 'defective,' he acknowledges it 'can be improved.' He called for constructive engagement, saying, 'If there are defects in this Bill, and I accept it can be improved but I don't think it's a defective Bill, then make the changes. If I resist the changes, then vote them through.' He praised the Lords as a 'sensible place' that excels at reviewing and amending legislation when necessary.
However, a source close to Labour MPs and peers opposed to the bill condemned threats to use the Parliament Act as 'the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance.' This reflects deep divisions over the ethical and practical implications of assisted dying, with time running out before the King's Speech.
Precedents and the Path Forward
Supporters of the bill remain confident that the Parliament Act could be applied if the legislation is reintroduced in a second session. They cite precedents for its use on 'conscience issues,' such as the Hunting Act 2004, which was one of only seven bills passed under section 2 of the law. This historical context adds weight to their strategy, as they push for a resolution amid ongoing debates over parliamentary procedure and moral oversight.
As the deadline approaches, the assisted dying bill continues to spark intense debate, balancing the desire for legislative progress with the need for thorough scrutiny to ensure safety and ethical integrity in end-of-life care.
