𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Terminally ill mum Sophie Blake has issued a desperate plea to seven peers who are blocking the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords. The 52-year-old, who has stage four breast cancer, fears a change in the law will come too late for her if a small group of hardline opponents succeeds in talking out the landmark legislation. She said: “While these shameless Lords try to block the Bill, terminally ill people are seeing their conditions progress or cancers spread, and living in fear of the pain and suffering that may lie ahead.

“There have been three funerals in the last month for my much-loved friends from the cancer community. As I try to focus on living and making memories with my daughter Maya, I’m aware that any further delay to this legislation could mean it comes too late for me. We were given hope that we would be able to live in peace with our terminal illnesses — now that hope is being taken from us.”

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed two major votes among MPs last year and was sent to the House of Lords for scrutiny last June.

It will only become law if it passes a third reading there and both Houses agree on the final text before the end of the Parliamentary session, expected to fall in early May. Supporters believe that a majority of peers would vote in favour of the bill if it reached a third reading vote.

However, seven hardline opponents have been accused of frustrating the process by tabling hundreds of amendments and filibustering with lengthy, repetitive speeches during debates.

Supporters led by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Lord Charlie Falconer have now warned that the bill looks set to run out of time.

Drugs are keeping Sophie’s cancer stable for now and she has regular scans, but it is incurable and could progress at any time. She said a small group of peers should not be allowed to “override the settled will of elected representatives”.

Sophie, of Brighton, added: “It’s disgraceful that these opponents are using their power and privilege to block the will of the public and democracy in this country. It feels like they’re being allowed to ride roughshod over democracy with no accountability.

“Terminally ill people have gone from feeling like we were finally listened to last year to having this small group of peers refuse to acknowledge us, repeatedly dismissing the reality of our experiences while claiming they are protecting vulnerable people. Aren’t dying people vulnerable too?”

Opponents have claimed they are simply carrying out thorough scrutiny of a bill they believe to be dangerously flawed.

But they have been criticised for proposing unreasonable amendments including a requirement for anyone seeking an assisted death to have a pregnancy test and a ban on travelling in the year before death.

Analysis by campaign groups My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK found the seven opponents had put forward 665 of the almost 1,200 amendments tabled by January 22.

They include Baroness Ilora Finlay, a professor of palliative medicine who proposed 190 amendments, and former Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who put forward 130.

Crossbencher Baroness Grey-Thompson has described the bill as “badly written” and in need of many changes, particularly those aimed at preventing coercion.

Ms Leadbeater rejected this on Thursday and said opponents were trying to carry out “a classic filibuster in the House of Lords”.

She added: “There is no way that this piece of legislation needs over 1,000 amendments. It’s a very robust piece of legislation.

“This handful of people are showing no signs of trying to debate this subject efficiently, to give the bill time to pass through the House of Lords and return it to the Commons, to the elected chamber. That’s deeply worrying so we are looking at what other options are available to us, were the bill to end up running out of time.”

As the clock runs down, Ms Leadbeater and Lord Falconer have said the Parliament Act could be invoked to bypass the House of Lords.

If the bill falls in May, it can be re-introduced in the next parliamentary session. The 1911 Act says that if the same bill is passed by the Commons in two consecutive sessions, it can become law without the consent of the Lords.

Ms Leadbeater said: “Whilst it’s an unusual thing to happen, it’s not something that has never been done before and it is a perfectly legitimate part of what is possible within Parliament.”

She added: “I worry about the reputation of the House of Lords — who nobody voted for, nobody elected. They should not, on that basis, have the power to try and block something that has been voted for by people who were democratically elected.”

The Spen Valley MP also described “anger, upset and frustration” among MPs who spent months respectfully and constructively debating the legislation.

She added: “Even colleagues who voted against at third reading in the Commons are very upset about what’s happening now. For any colleagues who think, ‘We’ll just brush this under the carpet’, it will not go away. It is an issue of our time.”

Ms Leadbeater was joined by Sir David Natzler, a former Clerk of the House of Commons (the principal constitutional adviser to the chamber).

He dismissed suggestions by some opponents that invoking the Parliament Act would amount to a “nuclear option” or bullying.

Sir David said the Act was not “some sort of Joker you keep up your sleeve” but a framework that gives a statutory basis to the primary of the elected House of Commons over the unelected House of Lords”.

He added: “It doesn’t demand tricks or games and it isn’t unknown. The House of Lords is wholly aware of the Parliament Act, it’s part of the framework in which the whole of Parliament operates. It’s not being used, it simply comes into effect because that’s what the Act says.”

Sir David said the Lords usually scrutinised legislation in an “extremely thorough and self-disciplined manner”. He added: “That is what should be happening now. After all these hours in the Lords, it is odd that there has not been a single vote, so nobody knows what the House of Lords — or even the minority that are filibustering — actually want.”

If the bill falls in the first session, its passage into law will likely be delayed until at least spring 2027.

Lord Falconer said: “The majority of the Lords, without a doubt, are in favour of proper scrutiny and then returning the bill to the Commons to decide about any amendments we make.”

What is the Parliament Act?

The Parliament Act is a rarely used piece of legislation that stops the House of Lords overruling the House of Commons.

When the chambers cannot agree, it states that a bill passed by the Commons in two consecutive sessions can become law without the consent of the Lords.

If the bill falls this spring, it could be reintroduced by an MP drawn high in the Private Member’s Bill ballot, which allows backbenchers to propose new laws.

This would depend on an MP who supports the change — and is willing to take on such a momentous and contentious issue — being drawn. They would also need to be high up in the ballot order to ensure enough time.

Or the Government could intervene to ensure there is enough parliamentary time for the bill to be considered in the Commons once more. It has remained staunchly neutral on the issue, despite Sir Keir Starmer’s known support for assisted dying.

Simply allowing time for the issue to be resolved would not necessarily compromise this neutrality but could cause uproar among Labour backbenchers who oppose the bill.

This mean the legislation’s future may depend on whether the Prime Minister is willing to risk a row.

For the Parliament Act to apply, the Commons would have to pass the bill in its current form. However, experts believe some amendments would still be possible, particularly if the Lords agreed to work efficiently the second time around.

Former Clerk of the House of Commons Sir David Natzler said the Act meant that “the Commons has primacy, ultimately, in legislative matters”.

He added: “That was decided over 100 years ago. It’s not a matter of bullying [the Lords], it’s a matter of following the rules.”