Assisted dying row sees menace of uncommon regulation as peer warns of ‘completely no hope’
Efforts to legalise assisted dying have reached a crunch point after supporters of a change in the law threatened to use a rare parliamentary procedure to bypass opposition
Assisted dying is a divisive issue with campaigners from both sides having taken part in demonstrations outside Parliament last year(Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
Efforts to legalise assisted dying have reached a crunch point after supporters of a change in the law threatened to use a rare parliamentary procedure to bypass opposition.
MPs passed historic legislation to allow terminally ill people to end their lives last June but the Bill has since stalled in the House of Lords.
Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the Lords, warned opposing peers to “stop all this smoke and mirrors” as he accused them of trying to talk the Bill out of time.
He said the Parliament Act – a law from 1911 – could be invoked to ensure they conclude their debates before time runs out. The Act establishes the supremacy of the Commons, which is made up of elected MPs, over the Lords, which is made up of appointed peers.
Lord Falconer said he had sought advice along with Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the Bill in the Commons, on the possible ways forward and said the “Parliament Act is an option”.
READ MORE: House of Lords give Assisted Dying bill ‘more time’ after ‘time wasting’ accusations
He admitted it would be “unprecedented” to use the Act for a private members’ bill but warned that MPs should have the final say over a change in the law.
But he warned the Bill has “absolutely no hope” of passing without a “fundamental change” in peers’ approach. “We (Lords) are not elected, we’re all appointed for a whole variety of reasons, whereas the Commons are elected by the public,” he told Sky News.
“If anybody is to decide whether (if) this really important change is to take place, surely it shouldn’t be a minority of Lords blocking it. It should be a decision made by the elected representatives.”
The rarely used legislation allows for Bills that have been backed by the Commons in two successive sessions – but rejected by peers – to pass into law without Lords approval.
Only seven Bills have been passed using the powers under section 2 of the law, including the Hunting Act 2004. A source close to Labour MPs and peers against the Bill said the threat of using such powers “is the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument”.
Nikki da Costa, a former Downing Street adviser, insisted peers are simply “doing their best to patch these holes” in the Bill and “responding to external concerns”. The critic of the Bill said: “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.”
Lord Falconer – a former Justice Secretary – added to BBC Radio 4: “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. Stop all this smoke and mirrors that we got from Nikki da Costa. Focus on making the Bill better if you say that’s what’s wrong with it.”
He added to BBC News: “If it goes on like this it has absolutely no hope whatsoever of getting out of the Lords.”
Home Office minister Alex Norris said today: “I think the peers need to do their job. I would hope that they would use that as a process of revising and improving, as the law is meant to, rather than trying to artificially stop it.”
Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell said he hopes peers scrutinise the Bill in a “responsible way” and the Parliament Act does not have to be invoked. During business questions in the Commons, Tory MP Dame Harriett Baldwin asked for assurance that Government time would not be allocated for the Act.
Sir Alan responded: “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.
“But the Government position hasn’t changed, which is, once the Lords have completed their scrutiny, if necessary, we will find time in this place to debate those amendments, because the will of this House was very clear, and I hope, without having to go down the avenues that have been described, that we will be able to resolve this matter.”
