I have been contacted by a number of constituents expressing their latest concerns about the House of Lords consideration of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. These concerns are framed around a belief that the parliamentary process is being deliberately obstructed by a few members of the unelected Lords’ talking out the bill’ or ‘filibustering’.
On the other hand, I have also been contacted by another group of constituents who are worried that the Parliaments Acts 1911 is going to be misused to force through an ill-thought-out Private Members’ Bill in the next parliamentary session should it fail to pass the legitimate and necessary scrutiny from the Lords.
The first group says it will be
‘an affront to our democracy if the Bill falls simply because the lack of rules in the House of Lords allow what the former Lord Speaker Baroness Hayman described as “filibustering masquerading as legitimate scrutiny.’
The other group tells me that
‘Peers have provided scrutiny that was not possible in the House of Commons - you will recall that there was insufficient time at Report stage in the Commons for dozens of important amendments to be debated. When accusations of filibustering first arose before Christmas, Sir David Beamish, former Clerk of the Parliaments, confirmed the legitimacy of scrutiny that had taken place thus far, telling the Hansard Society podcast, “so far we haven't seen anything look like filibustering”. Scrutiny has been similarly appropriate since.’
As you will recall, MPs voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading by a very slim majority of 23 votes. I voted against the Bill at the time because I have sincere and grave concerns about its workability, the pressure it will place on the NHS capacity and workforce, the lack of sufficient safeguards, and the change it will bring about in the relationship between our medical profession and their vulnerable patients. I also fundamentally disagree that such a large and impactful bill should go through as a private members bill. It’s too far-reaching to be dealt with this way and I strongly think the Government should have agreed to bring it forward in their time.
I am pleased the Bill is being subject to considered and thoughtful debate in the House of Lords. I am clear that a great many amendments to this legislation are needed to make assisted dying provision safe and effective if passed. I do believe peers have the required experience and expertise to robustly debate and challenge the Bill with the view to making its protections stronger for everyone, especially the vulnerable and ensuring it is a workable proposition. It’s why we have a second chamber - to work with us to shape legislation so it is both viable and deliverable.
Making good law that works properly is a very serious, detailed and often time-consuming job which is why bills of such societal consequence as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill do not usually make their way through parliament in the form of a Private Members Bill – the preparation and time needed in the House of Commons is simply not available. This is now the job of the Lords and I have been very impressed with the quality of debates in the House of Lords on this issue on both sides of the argument.
To explain further, rather than a government bill, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a Private Members Bill proposed by Kim Leadbetter MP. Government bills are extensively well drafted by specialist lawyers and gone through with a fine-tooth comb by civil servants before being presented to the House. This process is called pre-legislative scrutiny and is not done for PMBs, including the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Government bills also usually have a mandate from the Government’s General Election manifesto. Private members bills do not get anything like this; although there is some support and advice, it is nothing overly substantial. In addition, enough time is allocated to Government bills to ensure proper debate and scrutiny of the detail, not just the principles– as we all know, the devil is in the detail.
For PMBs, only Fridays are reserved for backbench legislation in both chambers; given its magnitude, I know several additional sitting Fridays have been tabled for committee stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill but this has not been enough for all the work needed on this particular bill. I am also aware that eight additional sitting Fridays have been allocated for peers’ debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill this spring and I am following these debates closely. Meanwhile, this bill has pushed out smaller bills and actions by its sheer enormity which cannot be right either.
So while I have carefully noted your concerns, it is clear to me the House of Lords does have an important role in scrutinising and improving draft legislation and I do believe it is vital the Government commits to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons.
For example, I shall remain very concerned that, as we have seen in other countries that have moved to legalise assisted dying, the scope and criteria for eligible persons could significantly widen in the future. It is important to study the examples of Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands, where there are cases of disabled people, those with poor mental health, or those living with dementia becoming eligible for an assisted death. Equally, Parliament should never legislate for something that may end up placing pressure on somebody to die because they are talked into believing that they are a financial burden on their family or on public services.
I will, of course, continue to closely follow this Bill’s progression on behalf of all my constituents. However, while I absolutely believe in better palliative care, I still roundly feel this bill is not fit for purpose. In the form in which it headed to the House of Lords, it lacks the rigour needed to ensure assisted dying works in practice, for all, and that the NHS, professionals and our community services are ready for it.
I also strongly feel we can only make this change if our care sector, hospice, and palliative care is looked at properly first and improved so a real choice is available to people when they are at their most vulnerable. In my view, time and money spent on palliative care, our wider care sector and community care is time and money well spent. In my view, time and money spent on palliative care, our wider care sector and community care is time and money well spent. Only when this sector is hugely improved and able to deliver care to all those who want it, do I believe legislation like this bill can truly work in the way those pushing for change actually envision it working.
Marie Curie is a respected campaigner for palliative and end-of-life care across the UK. As you know, Marie Curie supported Amendment 21 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at report stage in the House of Commons. The Amendment called for an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care services within a year of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. This includes pain and symptom management, psychological support for those persons and their families, and information about palliative care and how to access it.
As I have already outlined, this Bill must not detract from the need to provide high quality end-of-life care. These issues are not competing, and I note Marie Curie has a neutral position on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I was pleased that the Bill’s Sponsor supported Amendment 21 at report stage, and that clause has now been added to the Bill. More broadly, I am very grateful this campaign has led to an increased awareness of, and public discourse about, palliative and end-of-life care because no one wants their loved ones to suffer at the end of their life and I do appreciate we all are doing what we believe is best to achieve that end.
On St Patrick’s Day, the 17th of March, the Scottish Parliament voted to reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill after two years of scrutiny and debate, having received much of the same criticism and concern as the bill going through the UK Parliament. At the end of 2024, the Senedd in Wales voted against the principle of assisted dying or assisted suicide.
I am deeply concerned that leading supporters of the Bill have suggested using the Parliament Act to bring this Private Members Bill into law as some of my constituents have raised with me. The Parliament Act allows for a bill that has been passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords to return in a new parliamentary session and automatically become law without Peers’ approval.
However, and this is really important, in order for this to happen, a bill identical to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill with the exact wording it had in place when it was sent to the House of Lords would have to pass the Commons a second time and would then become law even without the Lords' approval. We must all acknowledge that even supporters of the Bill, including the Sponsor, have admitted there are workable amendments that absolutely need to be made. Therefore, there is a very real risk that invoking the Parliament Act could see a totally impractical and dangerous piece of legislation end up on the Statute Book.
These are hugely controversial powers which are normally reserved for key government manifesto commitments which, by convention, are rarely contested by the House of Lords. The Parliament Act has never been used for a Private Members Bill brought by a backbench MP for good reason. Given the huge societal consequences of legislation in this area, I am firmly against it being used in this context.
I hugely recognise there are many and varied views on this. I accept and appreciate that my views won’t make everyone happy and I respect and understand that. Please be assured, I will always listen to other viewpoints and look to find common ground. Equally, I will always try to clearly explain my views and opinions and I hope this is helpful.
