Senior opponents of assisted dying legislation have urged peers not to hold up the progress of the bill, warning that the Lords risk losing democratic legitimacy. In a letter to the Guardian, Labour MPs Justin Madders, Dame Nia Griffith and Debbie Abrahams, who previously opposed the substance of the bill, called on peers not to deliberately filibuster it.
The bill faces more than 1,150 tabled amendments, of which only 80 have been covered in three days of debate. Many supporters admit it is in serious danger of running out of time before the end of the parliamentary session, meaning it will fail to pass. Some opponents argue the lengthy consideration is normal for a complex issue, citing concerns from professional bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
The MPs warned that an unelected house should not have the final say on legislation passed by the Commons. “If the Lords resort to blocking procedures, this is effectively breaking convention,” they wrote. “Any attempt to derail that process not only breaks convention, it also risks setting a precedent which would increase calls for radical reform of the House of Lords.”
Senior cross-benchers, including former independent terrorism reviewer Lord Carlile, are attempting to mediate between the two sides to speed up amendments. The constitutional pressure group Unlock Democracy has launched a campaign accusing peers of “filibustering” the bill in an anti-democratic effort to “sabotage” its progress.
But opponents argue there is no constitutional reason for the Lords to allow the bill to pass, as it was not in any party’s manifesto. A letter from seven peers, including Lady Luciana Berger, said scrutiny should not be conflated with obstruction, and noted that equivalent Lords committee time would be 16 days. Unease has also been sparked by a leaked Labour briefing suggesting a private member’s bill was the preferred vehicle for assisted dying while in opposition.
