Senior opponents of the assisted dying bill have urged peers not to deliberately block its progress, warning that the House of Lords risks losing democratic legitimacy. In a letter to the Guardian, three Labour MPs—Justin Madders, Dame Nia Griffith, and Debbie Abrahams—who previously opposed the bill, called on the Lords to avoid filibustering tactics.
More than 1,000 amendments have been tabled, with only 80 considered during three days of debate. Supporters fear the bill will run out of time before the end of the parliamentary session, effectively killing it. The MPs argued that an unelected chamber should not have the final say on legislation passed by the Commons with a convincing majority.
“If the Lords resort to blocking procedures, and impede the implementation of decisions taken in the Commons, this is effectively breaking this convention,” the letter stated. It warned that such actions could increase calls for radical reform of the House of Lords.
Opponents of the bill, however, maintain that lengthy scrutiny is normal for complex legislation and that they are addressing significant concerns from professional bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists. A group of seven peers, including Lady Luciana Berger, argued that scrutiny should not be conflated with obstruction.
Cross-benchers, led by former terrorism reviewer Lord Carlile, are attempting to mediate between the sides to speed up the amendment process. Meanwhile, the campaign group Unlock Democracy has accused peers of “filibustering” in an anti-democratic effort to sabotage the bill.
