Why the Lords could kill the assisted dying bill

The assisted dying bill should be a showcase for parliament at its very best: politicians and experts working across party boundaries to make a real difference to people. But such is the depth of feeling about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that arguments have become concerned with procedure as well as principle, and there is now a chance the bill will end up failing simply because it runs out of parliamentary time.

It has already been subject to exceptional scrutiny in the House of Lords, and the process is far from over. As a private member’s bill, it is more vulnerable to running out of time compared to a government bill that would have the full weight of the Labour whips behind it.

The bill has just had another debate at the committee stage in the Lords, including a lengthy discussion about whether people know their GPs personally these days. More such discussions of detail are being demanded. More than 1,000 amendments to the bill that were passed by the House of Commons have been tabled in the Lords, which is something the bill’s main sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, feels is excessive and may amount to “sabotage”.

“It’s looking increasingly like people who are fundamentally opposed to a change in the law, a view which I respect, [are] trying to prevent the law passing,” she said. One amendment suggested any assisted death should be videoed, presumably as an additional safeguard. Leadbeater calls that “incredibly intrusive and heartless”. Tanni Grey-Thompson, an opponent, says members were simply interrogating the bill “line by line” and filling “massive gaps” with safeguards.

Assisted dying is obviously an emotionally charged topic. Issues of conscience and religion are involved, and the law is clearly clashing with notions of the sanctity of life as well as bodily autonomy.

However, some also believe that a private member’s bill – even one produced with the enthusiasm and skill of its sponsors, Leadbeater and Charlie Falconer – is an unsuitable vehicle for such a momentous change. They feel it would have been preferable, or essential, to have the legislation as a government bill, which would have entailed deeper initial research into the background and the allocation of NHS resources required to make it a reality.

In effect, yes. Not the slightest suggestion about assisted dying appeared in the Labour manifesto, so the “Salisbury convention” in which the Lords ultimately passes bills that carry a popular mandate does not apply. The bill’s proponents argue that its passing in the Commons means it has democratic credentials, but that is not the same thing.

The Commons’ majority for the bill was far from overwhelming; but there seems to be a very clear view among the public in favour of assisted dying, which is a factor in these debates. If the Lords insist on taking up too much parliamentary time, the government – which has already granted the bill time that would otherwise be used for its own legislation – may decide to call it a day.

The nearest parallel to the present situation is the 1967 Abortion Act, which was the work of David Steel, then a young Liberal backbencher. Towards the end of the process, Steel was faced with a “wrecking amendment” in the Lords which would succeed by a majority of one. Steel’s response was to threaten the Lords with the Parliament Act, which allows a bill to become law despite the opposition of the Lords if it passed by the Commons in two successive parliamentary sessions. The Lords then backed down and Steel’s bill, which also raised fundamental moral, medical and religious concerns, received royal assent. In principle, Leadbeater and Falconer could do something similar, except that their bill is less well-supported in the Commons than was Steel’s, and it would still require the government to grant it additional time when debates are resumed in January.

The bill’s proponents could argue the issue will continue to be raised in parliament until it is finally settled by the democratically elected Commons, reflecting the wishes of the people.

Change was promised by Labour but it doesn’t seem to be progressing rapidly. If the Lords succeeds in effectively destroying this bill, it will plainly provoke a powerful backlash against its entire role and purpose. Some will never forgive the Lords, nor the Labour government, that failed to back a bill that commands wide public support.