It would be “outrageous” to use the Parliament Act to force through the assisted dying bill without the approval of the House of Lords, a leading opponent of the bill has said.
It comes after the backer in the Lords admitted using the procedure would be “unprecedented” but justified to ensure the will of elected MPs is not blocked.
Crossbench peer Baroness Ilora Finlay told Sky News: “I think that’s outrageous, I really do”.
Politics Hub: Follow the latest updates
Baroness Finlay, a doctor, professor of palliative care and former president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said “trying to hammer the bill through with all the dangers [in it] is incredibly irresponsible”.
Conservative former transport secretary Lord Mark Harper told Sky News that Lord Falconer “wants to force through a bill which is unsafe and deficient”.
Former justice secretary Lord Falconer, who is shepherding the bill through the Lords, told Mornings with Ridge and Frost that using the Parliament Act for a private members’ bill “would be unprecedented”.
He added: “But the essence of the Parliament Act is in order to give the Commons primacy over the Lords, because we are not elected, we’re all appointed for a whole variety of reasons, whereas the Commons are elected by the public.
“If anybody is to decide whether or not… this really important change is to take place, surely it shouldn’t be a minority of Lords blocking it. It should be a decision made by the elected representatives.”
The Parliament Act allows for an identical bill that has been passed by the Commons in two consecutive sessions of parliament to become law even if the Lords don’t agree. The act has only been used seven times in the century-plus since it was introduced.
The bill has made slow progress in the Lords so far, and looks like it will run out of time on its current trajectory. Peers are next set to debate it on Friday.
A source close to Labour MPs and peers opposed to the bill suggested MPs might be unwilling to vote through the bill if the “nuclear option” of the Parliament Act was used, calling Lord Falconer’s claim he could use it “the act of a bully who knows they are losing the argument on the substance”.
Labour MP Jess Asato, who is opposed to the bill, said: “If we mess this up and force this through in this deeply flawed state we will be held responsible.”
The bill has to complete its passage through the Lords and return to the Commons to agree changes before the end of the parliamentary session, expected in May. If it doesn’t, it will fall and fail to become law.
The bill can only be debated on Fridays. The government recently extended the number of hours peers sit on a Friday to allow for more debate, but has refused to give it any further time.
‘Scrutiny is not filibustering,’ say opponents
Backers of the bill say peers have made slow progress in their scrutiny. In the seven days of committee stage peers have had so far, they have considered just 20 groups of amendments out of a total of 88. They are still scrutinising clause 1 of a 59-clause bill.
Home Office minister Alex Norris told Sky News peers needed to “do their job”.
“I would hope that they would use that as a process of revising and improving as the Lords is meant to, rather than trying to artificially stop it,” he said.
But opponents of the bill fiercely deny they are purposefully obstructing it from passing, and insist they are simply trying to improve what they think is a poorly designed piece of legislation.
Baroness Finlay and Lord Harper have tabled more than 230 amendments to the bill between them. Over 1,200 amendments have been tabled in total, which is one of the highest numbers in modern history.
“Scrutiny is not filibustering. This bill as written is really unsafe,” Baroness Finlay said.
She said the bill didn’t contain anything to protect vulnerable people: “They’re not safeguards, they’re just vague qualifying conditions.”
Baroness Finlay named issues like whether pregnant women would be eligible, people feeling like a burden or being coerced into seeking an assisted death, and which drugs would be used to end life as issues that still needed ironing out.
She said peers debated 100 amendments last Friday, comparable to other bills, and said the debate would move faster if Lord Falconer and the government provided answers to questions more quickly.
“To imply that the rest of us haven’t been turning up and working [on the bill] is really rude actually,” she added.
Baroness Finlay said many MPs backed the bill on the basis the Lords would “sort it out”.
Lord Harper said claims of a filibuster are “just not correct”, and that Lord Falconer had “himself accepted the bill has flaws… all we’re doing is working through the bill”.
He said peers were “moving at a reasonable pace, [given the] size and complexity of the bill… [we’ve] still got an awful lot of work to do as the bill is in a terrible shape”.
He also criticised a private members’ bill being used for an “issue like this of its complexity”, saying it was “completely unsuitable”.
But Lord Falconer told Sky News it was the right route for the bill, given it is a conscience issue.
He said it would be wrong for a government to put it in a manifesto: “There’s been conscience issues right throughout our history where no party will agree in that manifesto because their own parties are all divided.”
