Assisted Dying Supporters Reject Bullying Claims as Parliament Act Looms
Proponents of the assisted dying Bill have firmly rejected accusations of bullying from opponents, who claim supporters are attempting to force the legislation through Parliament. The controversy intensifies as backers suggest invoking the rarely-used Parliament Act to override objections from peers if the draft law fails to gain approval before the King's Speech in May.
Constitutional Showdown Over End-of-Life Legislation
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was voted through by MPs in the Commons back in June, returns to the House of Lords on Friday for further detailed scrutiny. This comes amid an unprecedented situation where members of the Lords have tabled more than 1,000 amendments – a record number for a private member's Bill.
Supporters of the legislation accuse opponents of attempting to delay or talk out the draft legislation through this amendment process, potentially causing it to run out of time before the current parliamentary session concludes in spring. The Parliament Act, which allows for Bills backed by the Commons in two successive sessions but rejected by peers to pass into law without Lords approval, has emerged as a potential constitutional solution.
Key Figures Clash Over Parliamentary Process
Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer, who is sponsoring the Bill in the House of Lords, emphasised the importance of Parliament reaching a resolution on this matter. He suggested that if the Parliament Act were to be invoked, the Bill could potentially be approved "sometime in the spring of 2027".
"There is no resolution if it just peters out in the Lords because there is no time," Lord Falconer told reporters. "That will then lead to the thing coming back again and again and again throughout this parliamentary session with no resolution. We, as a Parliament, should be capable of reaching a conclusion."
Bullying Accusations and Constitutional Principles
A source close to Labour MPs and peers opposed to the Bill described threats to use the Parliament Act as "the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance". However, Lord Falconer strongly rejected this characterisation, stating: "It's neither bullying nor nuclear. It is absolutely the foundation of our constitutional democracy, which is ultimately – it is not the unelected Lords that can have their way. It is ultimately the Commons who are elected who can have their way."
Former Commons clerk Sir David Natzler, an expert in parliamentary procedure, supported this view, branding the use of the word "nuclear" as "a meaningless phrase". He explained that use of the Parliament Act would be "just the due process of parliamentary and statute law, it's nothing to do with bullying".
Medical and Ethical Concerns Raised
Opponents of the legislation continue to raise significant concerns about its potential impact. Labour MP Jess Asato argued: "A Bill like this with such profound life and death impacts, which still ignores massive risks like coercion or the capacity of the vulnerable, must not be forced through without the scrutiny it deserves."
Nikki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs for two previous prime ministers and a vocal critic of the Bill, highlighted how the legislation has "managed to provoke two royal colleges – psychiatrists and physicians – from four years of neutrality to saying that this Bill, while they're neutral on principle, that this Bill is unsafe".
Personal Appeals and Political Dynamics
Dame Esther Rantzen, one of the Bill's highest profile supporters who is terminally ill with cancer, has written directly to peers urging them to "stop inventing fictitious excuses" to block the proposed legislation. In her letter, she stated: "The House of Lords is not being honest. The real motive behind these 1,000 amendments is not to improve the Bill, but to block it."
She argued that some peers are "forcing on non-believers" their personal religious principles, while disability campaigners "believe quite wrongly that the Bill will apply pressure to disabled people when it only applies to terminally ill people like me".
Proposed Amendments and Government Position
Lord Falconer has written to peers outlining where he intends to propose amendments to strengthen and improve the Bill, including:
- A tighter definition of protections for people with eating disorders
- An explanation of how a ban on advertising assisted dying services would operate
- A clarification that medical practitioners would have to opt-in to take part in such a service
- Extra protections for people aged 18-25
Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell expressed hope that peers would scrutinise the Bill in a "responsible way" and that the Parliament Act would not need to be invoked. Meanwhile, Downing Street reiterated the Government's neutral position on assisted dying, declining to comment on whether time could be made for the Bill in the next parliamentary session.
Legislative Details and Safeguards
The Bill's proposals would allow adults with terminal illnesses in England and Wales who have less than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Any application would require approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, senior legal figure and a psychiatrist – creating multiple layers of professional assessment before any decision could be made.
As the parliamentary battle continues, both sides remain deeply entrenched in their positions, with the potential use of the Parliament Act adding a significant constitutional dimension to what has become one of the most contentious legislative debates of this parliamentary session.
