The House | We cannot let a small group of peers delay the assisted dying bill forever

4 min read28 January

There is growing concern, sometimes spilling over into anger, amongst many MPs at the painfully slow progress of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in the House of Lords.

That concern mirrors the deep frustration felt by peers on all sides, including supporters like me and some increasingly despairing opponents who care deeply about the reputation of the upper house and of Parliament as a whole. 

A large number of my colleagues, regardless of their views on the merits of the Bill, believe that the House should complete its established constitutional role of proper scrutiny and return the Bill with any agreed amendments so that the Commons may complete its work.

That cannot happen if a small minority of my fellow peers continue to drag out our proceedings to the point that the Bill falls through lack of time.

Despite a much larger amount of time having been allocated than would be expected for a bill of this size, we are nowhere near conclusion, even of committee stage, given the 1200-plus amendments that have been tabled so far, and which are now being discussed at inordinate length.

This is a result easier to achieve for a small, but determined group of members in the House of Lords, than it would be in the House of Commons. The Lords is almost entirely self-regulating. The Lord Speaker (a role I once filled), unlike the speaker in the Commons, cannot impose discipline or select amendments. It is extremely difficult to stop a member from speaking should they wish to do so. It is that right of self-regulation that is now being taken to extremes by a few, not the majority, of the opponents of the Bill.

This is a hugely important piece of legislation attracting understandably strongly held views which need to be heard. However, what is going on every Friday in the House of Lords at the moment is simply filibustering masquerading as legitimate scrutiny. 

As Mark Darcy of the impeccably impartial Hansard Society put it: “This is a filibuster. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes good in orange sauce, it’s a duck. If we’re going this slowly over this piece of legislation, I’m afraid it’s a filibuster.”

Such behaviour is highly unusual in the House of Lords, and often the worst offenders are ex-MPs, some of whom indeed until recently held ministerial office in the Commons. I fear they have yet to recognise that in the Lords, we have different responsibilities and different ways of doing things. Perhaps even more worryingly, is that they have lost sight of the fundamental principle in our bicameral system that the Lords should scrutinise and suggest improvements in legislation to the elected House, not subvert its will. This is even more acute when there is such well-evidenced, longstanding public support for change.

In the face of this filibuster, the House authorities have already made extra time available for scrutiny. Up to now, however, the opponents have shown themselves determined to soak up whatever time there is, and I fear they would continue to do so even if we start sitting through the night. 

The final protection against an attempt by the Lords to talk out a bill passed by the Commons is the Parliament Act. I know it has been suggested that the Act couldn’t be used for this bill, but that simply isn’t correct. The Parliament Act can be used for any public bill, including private members’ bills. The effect of this approach would be that the unelected Lords would no longer be able to frustrate the will of the elected Commons.

I would hope that even the possibility of the Parliament Acts being invoked would concentrate minds in the Lords. If opponents wish, as they claim to do, to improve and strengthen the Bill, then their opportunity to do so is now. If they don’t avail themselves of that opportunity, we are in deep and dangerous constitutional waters. 

Baroness Hayman is a former Lord Speaker of the House of Lords