No Reason Why Lords Can't Vote On "Terrible" Assisted Dying Bill, Says Tory Peer
There is "no reason why" the Lords could not vote on the legislation (Alamy)
5 min read
MPs leaving the House of Lords to iron out issues with the assisted dying bill is a "terrible dereliction of duty", a Conservative peer and former chief whip has told PoliticsHome.
Lord (Mark) Harper, who is against the principle as well as the particular bill going through Parliament, said there is "no reason why" the peers could not vote to address its "massive gaps", arguing that "it is absolutely our job to try and turn it into better legislation".
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced as a Private Members' Bill by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater last year. Since then, it has been the subject of emotive debate, and last week it moved closer to becoming law when MPs approved it by a majority of 23.
Speaking at the vote, Leadbeater, MP for Spen Valley, said: "I know what this means for terminally ill people and their loved ones."
It will now move to the House of Lords, with the unelected chamber currently expected to scrutinise the legislation after Parliament returns from its summer recess in early September.
When the bill was put before the Commons last week, concerns were raised that some MPs voted for it to proceed despite not being entirely comfortable with what was in it, on the basis that peers would carry out further scrutiny to improve the legislation. A Labour peer who was worried about this approach told PoliticsHome it was "extraordinary".
Harper, who was a Conservative MP from 2005 to 2024, said he was aware of MPs who "believed the legislation was not in good shape" and "wanted the Lords to improve it".
Under the Salisbury Convention, there is an understanding that the House of Lords will not stop a piece of government legislation becoming law if it was a manifesto pledge.
Peers like Harper argue that in this case, the convention does not apply, as the assisted dying legislation was brought forward by a backbench MP as a Private Members' Bill.
"There's no reason why we couldn't vote on it at Second Reading, and it is absolutely our job to try and turn it into better legislation – there are massive gaps in it," the former Cabinet minister said.
"Given that we know there are MPs, some on the record, some off the record, definitely think that there are issues that remain, and they want the House of Lords to deal with it, then we better jolly well do our jobs properly and deal with them."
Harper described MPs voting for the bill last week on principle rather than the details of the legislation as "a terrible dereliction of duty".
"If you didn't think it dealt with all your concerns, you shouldn't really have voted for it."
Harper's remarks contrast with those of fellow peer, Labour's Lord Falconer, who this week told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that while peers can work to improve legislation, ultimately they must vote "to uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with".
"Ultimately, it is the elected Members of Parliament, not the unelected members of Parliament, who have to make this decision," he argued.
Rebecca McKee, senior researcher at the Institute for Government think tank, said peers bring "deep, relevant expertise to these issues, and — as usual for a bill of such complexity and significance — we expect it to receive in-depth scrutiny in the Lords".
When it comes to Second Reading, peers – like MPs – are asked whether they are content for the bill to be read a second time, meaning it will continue its passage through Parliament. If the Salisbury Convention applies to the bill, peers are expected to allow it to proceed without a vote. However, if they do want to force a vote, they shout "not content".
Reasoned amendments can also be tabled as a means of indicating a difference of opinion.
On his opposition to the principle of legalising assisted dying, Harper said that it was largely informed by his former role as minister for disabled people under former Conservative prime minister David Cameron.
"It does fundamentally alter how society looks at people who have challenges, which is, frankly, a lot of people, and probably ends up being most people at some point in their life."
Harper is also concerned that assisted dying campaigners will not stop once the bill is made law, and "will immediately start trying to shift the goalposts again".
"If they get this on the statute, they will immediately start campaigning to widen the number of people that are eligible for it," arguing that this has been the case in other countries that have legalised assisted death for terminally ill people.
The peer also voiced concerns that a large chunk of the bill had been left to secondary legislation, which judges will be "able to fiddle with".
Harper was also critical about the lack of scrutiny on the working of the legislation and made the well-worn argument that the legislation should have been a government bill.
"She [Leadbeater] is a single backbencher, she's got whatever resources backbench MPs have to do stuff. It's not reasonable to expect her to be across absolutely everything."
On specific safeguards, Harper was concerned about a loophole that remains after the legislation passed the Commons, whereby someone who was sufficiently ill with anorexia could be eligible for an assisted death.
While an amendment that would mean individuals would not meet the requirements for an assisted death "solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking" was taken forward, Harper believes Leadbeater is "under the misapprehension that was the same thing as anorexia".
