Assisted Dying Bill Sparks Lords Bypass Threat Amid Bullying Accusations
Opponents of the assisted dying bill have levelled accusations of bullying against its supporters, following threats to bypass the House of Lords if peers continue to obstruct its passage. The controversy centres on claims that key backers are attempting to force the legislation through using constitutional mechanisms, a move described by critics as undemocratic and aggressive.
Government Urged to Listen to Parliamentary Anger
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer Charles Falconer have argued that the government has a duty to acknowledge the frustration among supporters regarding the bill's treatment in the Lords. They maintain that while the government can remain neutral on the substantive issue, it should allocate parliamentary time in the next session due to what they term an "undemocratic" precedent of obstruction by unelected peers.
Leadbeater expressed concern about the reputation of the House of Lords, stating, "I worry about the reputation of the House of Lords, who nobody elected. And they should not have the power to try and block something that has been voted for by people who were democratically elected." She emphasised that MPs are angered by the ability of a small group of peers to talk out a bill that secured majority support in the Commons.
Opponents Decry Special Treatment for Controversial Legislation
MPs opposing the bill, including Labour's Jess Asato, Meg Hillier, and Melanie Ward, have insisted it would be unacceptable for the government to grant "special treatment" to such a contentious piece of draft legislation. Ward highlighted warnings from professional bodies, including the royal colleges of psychiatry, general practitioners, and physicians, as well as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, regarding the bill's dangers.
Ward stated, "Many Labour MPs have been appalled to see comments from peers which suggest that poverty and mental illness should be acceptable reasons for people to have an assisted death. This confounds the fears of ourselves and millions of others across the country. The idea that the government should give special treatment to such an unfit private member’s bill is one that is opposed by many of us."
Parliament Act Threat Labelled as Bullying Tactic
A source close to peers opposed to the bill described the threat to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords as "the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance. Every day the bill is debated in the Lords, more flaws are being revealed." This characterisation underscores the deepening rift between proponents and opponents of the legislation.
The bill, which would legalise assisted dying for individuals with a terminal illness and a prognosis of less than six months to live, faces a critical deadline. It must pass by the end of the parliamentary session in May or automatically fail. If MPs were to pass the bill again, it would trigger provisions in the Parliament Act, allowing the Commons to assert its will over the Lords, potentially leading to the bill becoming law despite further obstruction.
Pressure Mounts on Government to Allocate Time
Leadbeater pointed out that the government has already demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the bill by granting additional days in the Lords. She argued that while there is "a very firm line" on neutrality from the government, this stance should shift now that the bill has passed the Commons. "I think there is absolutely a place where time is created … it still remains a free vote. The government still remains neutral, as they have been throughout. And I think that is not too much to expect to happen going forward. And the Parliament Act gives us those options. They are part of what we can do within our constitution," she said.
On Thursday, Number 10 declined to commit to providing more time for the bill but affirmed that parliament should be able to have its say on the issue. Meanwhile, MPs supporting the bill are expected to exert significant pressure on the government to allow time for it again in the Commons, setting the stage for a high-stakes constitutional and ethical showdown in the coming months.
