Assisted Dying Legislation Faces Critical Parliamentary Juncture
A prominent advocate for legalising assisted dying has issued a stark plea to opponents, urging them to abandon what he describes as "smoke and mirrors" tactics that are stalling progress on the contentious legislation. Lord Charlie Falconer, the former justice secretary who is sponsoring the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Lords, has warned that a rare parliamentary mechanism may be necessary to break the deadlock.
Parliament Act Looms as Potential 'Nuclear Option'
Supporters of the legislation have indicated they may invoke the Parliament Act if peers fail to approve the Bill before the current parliamentary session concludes in spring. This rarely used legislation allows Bills that have been backed by the House of Commons in two successive sessions to become law without Lords approval, even if peers reject them.
Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The constitution says if the Commons passes something, and the Lords block it – which is what's happening – then the way the Commons, who are elected, get their way is if they pass it again, second time in the same form, then it gets through without the Lords."
He added: "'Don't do that', I'm saying to the Lords. If you want to make changes to make it better, start engaging with the detail. The majority of peers are trying to do that."
Record Number of Amendments Tabled
The legislative process has been complicated by peers tabling more than 1,000 amendments to the Bill – a record number for a private member's bill. The legislation, which was voted through by MPs in the Commons last June, would permit terminally ill adults to request assistance to end their lives under strict safeguards.
Lord Falconer has accused a minority of peers of attempting to "talk the Bill out of time" through procedural delays rather than substantive debate. "They will not engage in detail," he claimed, "with the consequence that it is making slow progress through the upper chamber."
Opponents Voice Safety Concerns
Critics maintain they are fulfilling their constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation they believe contains dangerous flaws. Nikki da Costa, former director of legislative affairs for two prime ministers and a vocal opponent, argued: "This Bill 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."
She added: "This Bill is dangerous for the vulnerable and people will be failed. So, you've got a situation where Lord Falconer wants the Lords as a scrutinising chamber to stop doing the work and just wave it through."
A source close to Labour MPs and peers opposed to the legislation described threats to use the Parliament Act as "the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance." They warned: "Using the Parliament Act to force this through would mean that none of the known issues with the Bill would be fixed. Every MP who voted to force it through would bear responsibility for the inevitable suffering and deaths of vulnerable people."
Proposed Amendments Seek to Strengthen Safeguards
In an effort to address concerns, Lord Falconer has written to peers outlining where he intends to propose amendments to strengthen the legislation. These include:
- 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 participate
- Additional protections for people aged 18-25
Lord Falconer responded to critics: "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. The Lords is a sensible place. What the Lords does well is look at things and change them if they're wrong."
Government Maintains Neutral Stance
Downing Street has reiterated the government's neutral position on the matter. A Number 10 spokesman told reporters: "The Government is neutral on the matter of assisted dying in the passage of the bill. This is a matter of conscience. The Government has a responsibility to make sure any legislation that passes through Parliament is workable, effective and enforceable. But it is for Parliament to decide on any changes to the law and the Bill's passage is a matter for the House."
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. He acknowledged: "Obviously, when there is what looks like an impasse or a slowdown, people will be looking for a quick route around that, or any route round that, to be honest."
The legislative showdown comes as supporters point to precedents for using the Parliament Act on so-called "conscience issues," with only seven Bills having been passed using these powers since the legislation was enacted, including the Hunting Act 2004.
