Senior opponents of assisted dying legislation have called on peers not to hold up the progress of the bill through parliament, warning there was a serious danger of the Lords losing democratic legitimacy.
Many supporters now admit the bill is in serious danger of running out of time in the Lords before the end of the parliamentary session, meaning it will fail to pass, because of the slow pace of considering more than 1,000 amendments means the bill will probably run out of time for a vote.
In a letter to the Guardian, two former ministers, Justin Madders and Dame Nia Griffith, and another select committee chair, Debbie Abrahams, who previously opposed the substance of the bill have now urged peers not to deliberately filibuster it.
Just 80 of more than 1,150 tabled amendments have been covered during three days of debate. However, some opponents of the bill say the lengthy consideration of amendments is normal for a complex issue and that it has been up to peers to attempt to address a series of significant concerns about the bill, including from key professional bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
In their letter, Madders, Abrahams and Griffiths said there was increasing concern among MPs about the role unelected Lords have been playing in legislation. There is also significant anger about a separate government bill – the employment rights bill – which was blocked for a third time in the Lords on Wednesday night.
They said the Lords often did good work scrutinising legislation, but that an unelected house should not have the final say. “The fact that it is unelected can only be tolerated in a democracy provided its members accept that it is for the House of Commons to have the last word on what becomes law and what doesn’t in this country,” the letter said.
“If the Lords resort to blocking procedures, and impede the implementation of decisions taken in the Commons, this is effectively breaking this convention, so how long should we as the democratically elected chamber put up with it?”
The three MPs said they had voted against the bill as a matter of conscience but that it had passed with a convincing majority. “The question now is: is it acceptable for the Lords simply to keep talking in an attempt to reach the end of the parliamentary session without ever getting to a vote? The answer to that must be no.
“Or, if they do get to a vote, and they reject the will of the Commons, what should happen next? The expectation is clearly that, within a reasonable timeframe, the decision of the democratically elected chamber should take precedence.
“Any attempt to derail that process not only breaks convention, it also risks setting a precedent which would undoubtedly increase the calls for a radical reform of the House of Lords sooner rather than later.”
Senior cross-benchers, including the former independent terrorism reviewer Lord Carlile, are now attempting to mediate between the two sides to try to move through amendments faster.
A major constitutional pressure group, Unlock Democracy, has also launched a campaign this week saying that peers are “filibustering” the bill in an anti-democratic effort to “sabotage” its progress.
The group, which does not take a position on assisted dying, has written to the Labour peer Lord Falconer, who will lead on the bill in the Lords, asking him to “move heaven and earth” to get it to make progress.
But those opposed to the bill argue there is no constitutional reason why the Lords should not prevent the passage of the bill, seeing as it was not in any party’s manifesto.
A letter from seven peers including Lady Luciana Berger argued the equivalent norm for a bill that had spent 11 days in committee in the House of Commons would be 16 days sitting in the Lords committee stage.
“Scrutiny should never be conflated with obstruction. Our entire purpose at this stage is to take note of the concerns of experts and professionals, and to propose amendments which aim to interrogate the detail, and demonstrate where improvement is needed,” the letter said.
There has also been significant unease among peers after the Guardian revealed last week that Labour had proposed in a leaked internal briefing while in opposition that a private member’s bill would be the right vehicle to introduce assisted dying.
Senior opponents said they were confident they had the numbers to halt the bill at third reading if it reached that stage after the consideration of all the amendments.
On Friday, peers will debate the fourth day of amendments to the bill – with six more scheduled for the new year – including an amendment from Carlile, which would restore the role of a high court judge in deciding applications for an assisted death.
Carlile’s amendment, which has growing support among peers, would allow designated family judges as well as those in the high court family division to decide on cases, which its supporters argue would deal with the fears around court capacity.
But opponents argue that it could still cause significant backlogs in the courts. Kim Leadbeater, the bill’s original sponsor, dropped the original role of the high court judge from her bill in the Commons, preferring a panel of experts including a senior lawyer, a psychiatrist and social worker to decide applications.
Carlile and a number of other senior crossbenchers have said they hoped the bill can start to make significant progress. “I’m a longstanding opponent of assisted suicide legislation,” he told the Guardian. “But the difference with this legislation is this has been passed by the Commons.
“And I think that it is required of the Lords to self-discipline so that we get through the legal processes so there can be a vote on the principle at third reading. Then perhaps it will be defeated at third reading. And if it passes at third reading, I’m confident having gone through the processes it will be one of the safest, if not the safest, in the world.”
The assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen, one of the most outspoken advocates for the bill, who has stage-four lung cancer, was intending to address peers this week but has been too unwell.
In a message sent to peers, she said that any new law would not be in time for her but that she was “extremely concerned that the House of Lords is using process in an unprecedented way, sabotaging the bill rather than proposing genuine amendments, and this filibustering risks denying this issue the proper scrutiny it deserves”.
A cross-party group of MPs backing the bill also released a letter to peers on Thursday saying the bill “runs a serious risk of running out of time and falling, not on its merits but as a result of political manoeuvring”.
The letter is signed by two Tory former cabinet ministers, Kit Malthouse and Andrew Mitchell, as well as the Reform deputy leader, Richard Tice, the chair of the health select committee, Layla Moran, and four Labour select committee chairs.
“Ignoring the clear and consistent support of a majority of the public would further damage faith in our democratic processes,” it says.
But Mark Elliott, a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, said there was no constitutional reason why peers should feel bound to pass the bill. “There is no general principle requiring the Lords to yield to the Commons. But the current constitutional position is clear: it is open to the Lords to reject this private members’ bill.”
