Peers suggest over 900 changes to assisted dying bill

Peers suggest over 900 changes to assisted dying bill

What is the issue?

The Assisted Dying Bill aims to allow terminally ill adults to request assistance from medical practitioners to end their life, subject to safeguards. The House of Lords has suggested over 900 (reportedly as many as 1,034) amendments to the bill. Interestingly, there appears to be seven peers in particular, who are set on challenging the bill, having suggested as many as 617 amendments between them. This challenge from the Lords is unprecedented for a piece of backbench legislation at this stage in the legislative process (it has just passed its second reading and has progressed to the committee stage in the Lords). The huge number of amendments has been met with criticism, with some peers arguing that this is a clear attempt to delay the bill, rather than suggest meaningful amendments. Furthermore, The Dignity in Dying group, an organisation which campaigns for a change in law to allow assisted dying, has warned “the risk of deliberate time-wasting is clear and profoundly unfair”.

How does this fit into our course?

Part of our course focuses on the role of the House of Lords, and emphasises that it is an effective revising chamber. The value of the Lords lies in that it has more time to debate and scrutinise legislation than the House of Commons. It also contains many experts who can offer sensible advice on important issues. The Lords can also act more independently as party discipline is weaker, crossbenchers and non-affiliated members bring an impartial outlook, and peers can think more freely given that they do not have the pressure of constituent concerns on their mind when reviewing legislation.

However, the features of the Lords that make it so effective are also the features that limit its value. The main issue is that the Lords is unelected. This means that members of the Lords cannot claim to have the consent from the people to govern on their behalf. This brings into question the legitimacy of the Lords. It therefore makes perfect sense that the Lords has not been afforded the same powers as the democratically elected House of Commons. Limitations such as the Salisbury Convention, the Reasonable Time Convention and the Parliament Acts constrain the power of the House of Lords, ensuring that the elected house has greater power and authority. Therefore, the huge influence that the Lords currently has over the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill begs the question of whether it is right for an unelected chamber to have quite so much influence over a piece of such sensitive legislation.

Some might argue that this strengthens arguments for Lords reform. It appears that the unelected chamber is currently exerting disproportionate influence over legislation that is incredibly sensitive in nature. The sheer scale of the amendments is also controversial given the fact that unelected individuals (a small minority in particular) are obstructing a bill that is generally supported by elected MPs. What peers may argue is extensive yet constructive scrutiny can also be seen as an attempt to deliberately delay the passage of the bill. Lastly, the Lords is often praised for its expertise and neutral approach when legislating, but the sheer scale of amendments would suggest that the Lords is acting in a partial way, with some even arguing that a few are imposing their moral views onto others.

Conversely, supporters of the current state of the Lords might argue that the scale of amendments demonstrates the vital, deliberative role that it plays. For some, the vast number of amendments demonstrates the extensive scrutiny that the Lords can have over legislation. It shows that the Lords has engaged in rigorous examination, and is merely trying to offer suggestions on what it sees as a deeply flawed bill. Given that the bill is of a highly sensitive nature, some might argue that a slow, difficult process is necessary in order to get it right. It allows experts to raise concerns which ultimately will ensure greater protection for vulnerable people in the long-run.

Ultimately, the issue sheds light on the contentious nature of the Lords. Reform of the chamber is a hot topic at the moment, with a Lords Reform Bill soon to be made law. No matter which way you look at this particular issue, it is clear that this example reveals a number of issues relating to the current nature of the Lords and how we might seek to strengthen democracy in the UK.