MPs from across the political divide spoke out about the coordinated filibuster of the Assisted Dying Bill by a minority of peers in the House of Lords. During a Westminster Hall debate triggered by a public petition held yesterday, MPs lamented that the Bill fell without a single vote, directly contravening the clear will of the Commons, and undermining public trust in Parliament. Humanists UK joins MPs in calling out the unjust filibuster and calls on MPs to bring back the Bill.

The Westminster Hall debate was triggered when a petition ‘to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament’ received over 114,000 signatures. The petition was tabled by Sophie Blake, a mother living with Stage 4 Breast Cancer in memory of Nathaniel Dye MBE who died early this year.

The petition states:

We believe the decision of MPs must be respected, especially on matters of social change, and that unelected Lords have a responsibility to scrutinise bills, not block them. With over 1,000 amendments tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, most by just a handful of Lords, we are concerned that it will run out of time. MPs have voted for it, and a poll has found over 70% of the public backs it. While the Government is neutral, it must uphold democracy. We believe it must act so the Bill can progress.

The debate

Leading the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee, Lewis Atkinson, Labour MP for Sunderland Central, and All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) member paid tribute to Nathaniel Dye and Sophie Blake and outlined that the he thought he petition posed:

‘what I would suggest is an existential question for us here: does our constitutional settlement allow changes that have been backed by the public and their representatives to pass into law? I desperately want the answer to that question to be yes. That is not because I want a specific piece of legislation to be passed; it is because if, as a country, we cannot resolve different views through Parliament—developing legislative proposals and scrutinising them, but ultimately reaching a decision on them—we are in a very troubling place.’

Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunedale and Chair of the APPHG, spoke about how the scrutiny process for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill went ‘went above and beyond the process for any Government Bill’. She said:

‘The debate today […] is about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. It is about the reasons why we have decided that those with no democratic mandate should not be able to block the will of the elected Chamber. It is about trust in Parliament—trust that we will act with dignity and respect for the proper way of doing things, and know our constitutional places and the limits placed on our power, which are there for a very good reason. It is about the ability of the Lords to behave in a way that allows us to have flexibility in our constitutional settlement, to move with the times and not to be bound by a single, rigid written document. I see great value in having flexibility in our constitutional mechanisms. However, that relies on individuals and groups of individuals operating with honour—something that, unfortunately, this episode did not demonstrate.’

Siân Berry, Green MP fro Brighton Pavilion, and APPHG member said:

‘On the principle—on this and any other issue where a similar process takes place and the House of Commons has the courage to come to a decision—I agree that it is not for the House of Lords to stop that using these kinds of methods.’

Kit Malthouse, Conservative MP for North West Hampshire and APPHG member opened his intervention by speaking how up until the debate around assisted dying, he believed the House of Lords was an ‘eccentric but essential part of our democracy’. He said:

‘We know that opponents were going around the House of Lords encouraging peers to table amendments to spread the air of suspicion. It was not just the odd one: there was the mandatory appearance in court and the increase in the number of doctors to five, alongside the pregnancy test and the travel ban. There were endless amendments that were specious and often openly cruel.

‘The second thing that really shocked me about the process was the disconnection of Members of the House of Lords from the wider population, and indeed from the number of our fellow citizens who find themselves in extremis and seeking relief from their pain. It was clear from what I am afraid was the casual cruelty in many of the speeches and amendments that those Members had just not sat down and talked with people, or spent time to understand the awful circumstances that so many of our citizens find themselves in.’

About the filibuster of the Assisted Dying Bill

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was passed by MPs last summer, fell in the House of Lords after nearly 1,300 changes to the Bill were proposed, a record for any parliamentary Bill. Amendments have included a pregnancy test for all applicants, including men, a one-year holiday ban for applicants, and an unworkable requirement for half a dozen GP visits.

We have identified several instances of peers being explicitly clear that they were trying to block the Bill by means other than it being voted down.

The Bill fell when it didn’t complete all its parliamentary stages by the end of the session.

The Bill could be brought back by an MP who was successful in the Private Members’ Bill ballot. If an identical Bill is brought back, it will still have to complete all its parliamentary stages, including the House of Lords again, but the Lords would not be able to block the Bill.

Karen Wright, Director of Human Rights and Advocacy at Humanists UK, said:

‘This debate highlighted the primacy of the Commons and the compassion that terminally ill people deserve. After hundreds of hours of intense scrutiny, thousands of emails, letters, and meetings with constituents, and heartfelt debates that were the Commons at its best, for the Bill to be talked out by a handful of unelected peers is a travesty. We hope MPs correct that injustice.

‘Terminally ill people who are suffering today face impossible and horrendous options: fly to Switzerland, resort to drastic and dangerous suicides, or suffer in pain. No compassionate society should accept those options.’