Assisted suicide bill could bypass the Lords

Supporters of Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill have expressed dismay over the time taken for the legislation to pass the House of Lords. They have suggested that, if the Lords fail to pass the Bill, it could be brought for approval by the House of Commons alone.

Lord Falconer, who has sponsored the Bill in the House of Lords, has commented that, as things are, it would be “very, very difficult” for the Bill to pass the House of Lords. The Bill is currently in the Committee Stage in the Lords, with seven days of discussion still scheduled over the coming weeks. However, with over a thousand amendments to consider, progress has been slower than supporters would like. Lord Falconer said on Wednesday, “if it goes on like this it has absolutely no hope whatsoever of getting out of the Lords.”

Supporters of the legislation have accused those opposed to the Bill of delaying tactics. But critics of the proposed law have argued that the legislation is unsafe and endangers those who are vulnerable.

The legislation was brought by MP Kim Leadbeater as a Private Member’s Bill, which means that it needs to complete the parliamentary process before the King’s Speech in May.

If the Bill is not passed by the Lords in time, Lord Falconer has proposed using the Parliament Act to bring the Bill back to the Commons in a new parliamentary session.

The Parliament Act is rarely used, have been utilised only seven times since 1911. It allows for a bill that passed the Commons but was rejected by the Lords to be brought again to Parliament. If an identical bill passes the Commons the second time then the Lords cannot oppose it and it will be brought into law at the end of the parliamentary session without the approval of Peers.

It would be controversial to use the powers of the Parliamentary Act for a Private Member’s Bill, especially for an issue as contested as assisted suicide. For the Parliament Act to be used, the legislation brought to the Commons must be identical. This would mean bringing a deeply flawed bill into law without the ability to change or amend it.

Lord Falconer has argued that the Parliament Act is a part of our constitution, saying: “The issue about assisted dying is very controversial, but ultimately somebody in our constitution has got to decide whether the country should make the change. The people who should decide it should be the elected representatives in the Commons. If they make up their mind but are blocked in giving effect to that decision by a small number of peers then the constitutional answer is the Parliament Act.”

Those close to Labour MPs and Peers who are opposed to the Bill told BBC News: “Threats to use the 'nuclear option' of the Parliament Act to recklessly force through this bill, which poses such risks to the vulnerable, is the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance… People need to be very clear, 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 though would bear responsibility for the inevitable suffering and deaths of vulnerable people.”