Assisted Dying Supporters Threaten Lords Bypass Amid Bullying Row
Backers of the assisted dying bill have been accused of bullying tactics after key proponents threatened to bypass the House of Lords if peers continue to obstruct the legislation. The controversy erupted as Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer Charles Falconer insisted the government must address growing frustration over the bill's handling in the upper chamber.
Government Urged to Grant Parliamentary Time
Leadbeater and Falconer argued that while the government could maintain neutrality on the bill itself, it has a duty to allocate parliamentary time in the next session. They cited what they described as an "undemocratic" precedent being set by the Lords' blocking actions. The proposed legislation would legalise assisted dying for terminally ill individuals with a prognosis of less than six months to live.
On Thursday, Downing Street declined to commit to providing additional time for the bill, though officials acknowledged Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the issue thoroughly. Leadbeater expressed particular concern about the reputation of the unelected 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."
Opponents Warn Against Special Treatment
MPs opposing the bill, including Labour's Jess Asato, Meg Hillier and Melanie Ward, have strongly objected to what they perceive as potential "special treatment" for such contentious legislation. Ward emphasised: "The assisted dying bill is a dangerous piece of draft legislation, as multiple professional bodies including the royal colleges of psychiatry, general practitioners and physicians and even the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] have all warned."
Ward further expressed alarm about comments from peers suggesting poverty and mental illness might be considered acceptable reasons for assisted death, stating this confirmed fears shared by millions across the country. A source close to peers opposed to the bill characterised the threat to use the Parliament Act as "the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance."
Parliamentary Timetable and Constitutional Mechanisms
Supporters of the bill are expected to intensify pressure on Number 10 to allow further Commons debate time. The legislation faces a critical deadline at the end of the parliamentary session in May, after which it would automatically fail without progress.
Should MPs pass the bill again in the Commons, this would trigger provisions within the Parliament Act 1911 that enable the elected chamber to assert its will over the Lords. If peers were to block the legislation once more, this override mechanism would allow it to become law regardless.
Leadbeater pointed out that the government had already demonstrated willingness to facilitate the bill's progress by granting additional days in the Lords. She maintained that while the government's position of neutrality should continue, parliamentary time should now be allocated since the bill had successfully passed the Commons.
The ongoing debate highlights fundamental questions about parliamentary procedure, constitutional balance between elected and unelected chambers, and the appropriate handling of ethically complex private member's bills within the British legislative system.
