2 hours ago
1
Opponents of the assisted dying bill have accused its supporters of bullying after key backers said they would attempt to bypass the House of Lords if peers continue to block it.
The Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and the Labour peer Charles Falconer said the government had a duty to listen to the anger among supporters about how the bill had been handled in the Lords.
They insisted the government could remain neutral on the bill but said it should give the bill time in the next session of parliament because of the “undemocratic” precedent of it being blocked by the Lords.
On Thursday, No 10 refused to commit to giving more time to the bill but said parliament should be able to have its say on the issue. The bill would legalise assisted dying for people with a terminal illness with less than six months to live.
Leadbeater said MPs were angry that a small handful of peers could talk out a bill that had been backed by a majority in the Commons. “I think the government should listen to that. I think they’ve got a duty to listen to that,” she said.
“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 said.
MPs who oppose the bill, including Labour’s Jess Asato, Meg Hillier and Melanie Ward, said it would be unacceptable for the government to give “special treatment” to such a controversial piece of legislation.
Ward said: “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 said.
“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.”
A source close to peers opposed to the bill said the threat to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords was “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”.
MPs who back the bill are expected to put significant pressure on No 10 to allow time for the bill again in the Commons. The bill must pass by the end of the parliamentary session in May or it will automatically fail.
If MPs were to pass the bill again, it would trigger provisions in the Parliament Act that allow MPs to assert their will over the Lords. Should the Lords block the bill again, the override mechanism in the act would mean it would still become law.
Leadbeater said the government had already showed it was prepared to give time for the bill by granting it additional days in the Lords. She said there was “a very firm line” on neutrality from the government but added that should now shift because the bill had 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.”
