Supporters of assisted dying are contemplating the potential use of the Parliament Act to circumvent the House of Lords should it continue to obstruct their proposed legislation. This strategy, while unprecedented for a private member’s bill, raises questions about parliamentary procedures and the future of the assisted dying debate.
Understanding the Parliament Act
Historically, the House of Lords wielded a complete veto over legislation proposed by the Commons. This changed dramatically following the 1909 crisis when the Lords blocked a budget presented by Chancellor David Lloyd George, prompting a general election focused on reforming the House of Lords. The subsequent 1911 Parliament Act curtailed the Lords’ veto powers, permitting them to delay legislation but not to outright reject it. In 1949, this delay period was shortened to one year.
If the Commons passes a bill that the Lords delay beyond this timeframe, it can be reintroduced in the next session and enacted without the Lords’ approval. This mechanism is distinct from the Salisbury Convention, which dictates that the Lords should not oppose legislation in the government’s manifesto.
A Rarely Used Strategy
The application of the Parliament Act is infrequent and typically reserved for contentious issues. To date, only seven bills have successfully become law through this process, with notable examples including the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexual acts in 2000 and the Hunting Act of 2004, which banned foxhunting.
Advocates of the private member’s bill to legalise assisted dying are exploring this route if the Lords fail to approve the legislation in the current session, which is expected to conclude in May.
Navigating the Challenges
Utilising the Parliament Act for a private member’s bill presents a complex and largely uncharted challenge. If the bill, championed by Kim Leadbeater, is delayed for more than a year after passing through the Commons, supporters believe there may be a pathway to apply the Act. However, this necessitates the bill to remain unchanged as it was initially passed, although some experts theorise limited amendments might be permissible.
If successful, the bill would return to the Commons for second and third readings, but without the possibility of amendments. Should it pass again, the Lords would still retain the capacity to challenge it, at which point the Parliament Act could be invoked to enforce its enactment.
The Role of Government Support
The likelihood of the bill resurfacing in parliamentary ballots hinges on chance. For a private member’s bill to stand a chance, Leadbeater or one of her supporters must secure one of the top positions in the ballot, a challenging feat given that hundreds of MPs participate.
While the government has maintained a neutral stance on the bill, Labour leader Keir Starmer supports assisted dying. Leadbeater could propose a presentation bill, but these often lack significant debate time. However, if there is significant pressure from MPs, the government might consider allocating time for discussion, framing it as a matter of fairness against the Lords’ resistance. This could ignite substantial controversy, particularly among Labour backbenchers who oppose the bill.
Potential Outcomes
If neither the ballot nor government support materialises, advocates for assisted dying may find themselves at a standstill. The absence of viable options would mean the bill faces an uncertain future, leaving supporters with limited pathways to pursue their legislative goals.
Why it Matters
The discussion surrounding assisted dying extends beyond parliamentary procedure; it touches on deeply personal and ethical issues that resonate with many across the nation. The potential use of the Parliament Act to bypass the Lords could signify a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue about assisted dying, highlighting the tension between legislative authority and moral considerations. As the debate unfolds, the implications for both the political landscape and individual rights are profound, making this an issue of critical importance for both policymakers and the public alike.
