The Real Issue At The Moment

How long has Esther Rantzen had six months to live? And good luck to her as she continues to embody the case against the Bill of which Yuan Yi Zhu writes:

Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey voted against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill last year because he thought disabled and elderly people might feel the pressure to kill themselves if they considered themselves a burden. But his scruples have apparently convinced him that the bill nevertheless must become the law of the land.

Speaking to Politico yesterday, Davey said that he thinks “the real issue at the moment is what the Lords is doing,” claiming that it is “quite outrageous” that it “seems to be members of the House of Lords who are trying to kill the bill”. Despite professing himself an opponent of the bill, he continued: “It’s the democratic right of the House of Commons to pass bad law if it wants to.”

At a technical level, Davey isn’t wrong. The House of Lords has not had the ability to veto legislation — with small exceptions — since 1911. The House of Commons has the democratic legitimacy and constitutional power to override the House of Lords.

Yet this seems like a bizarre complaint, since Parliament’s overriding powers do not kick in until the House of Lords has rejected the bill once, something which the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 provide for specifically. The House of Lords is perfectly within its rights to make the House of Commons think again, even if the latter does decide to pass less-than-perfect legislation. And, at the very least, the assisted dying bill is that.

In any case, the House of Lords is simply giving the bill proper scrutiny, which the House of Commons failed to do. As is often the case, peers have been entrusted by their colleagues in the other place to clean up the mess they produced. Scrutiny is not rejection; and if that is required every Friday during this session, then it is the business of their lordships, not of the MPs.

Davey’s intervention will have come as a welcome surprise to the bill’s supporters, who are trying to bully the Lords — with the help of this Labour government — into rushing the business. Lord Falconer, who has decided to dedicate the twilight of his political career to advance this particular cause, has tried to limit scrutiny.

His latest proposal? The House of Lords must skip line-by-line inspection and confine its work to 10 areas of concern. That there are more than 10 areas of concern does not apparently concern the noble lord. These areas of concern will be chosen by Lord Falconer. Speeches must be curtailed. The bill must pass by April. Opponents of the bill will get nothing in return.

Meanwhile, another supporter of the bill, Lord Baker, has threatened to force the House of Lords to sit on Fridays until midnight unless peers agree to curtail scrutiny on this bill. “Neutral” ministers have simply decided to refuse to take questions from peers on inconvenient topics such as palliative care provision.

The truth is that supporters of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill know they are running out of legislative time. There is a strong likelihood that the House of Lords will not be able to finish scrutinising the bill before the session’s end, which would lead it to fail. The bill may be carried over to the following session, but only if the Government interferes with the Lords’ standing orders. Ministers, many of whom are opposed to the bill, are likely to object.

There is also the problem of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s future, given that rumours of mutiny are still rumbling on. By this time next year, Dame Esther Rantzen’s best friend may no longer be the PM. Will his successor want to carry this political dog across the line? Without support from on high, will Labour MPs vote for assisted dying a second time?