Peers have declared that the House of Lords is now on course to reject the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill at Third Reading, after a strong majority of Peers spoke against the Bill at day one of Second Reading of the Bill today.
An analysis of the speeches today, completed by Right To Life UK’s Policy Team, shows that of the 86 peers who took a position on the Bill in their speeches, 58 (67%) spoke in opposition to the Bill and 28 (33%) spoke in favour. This represents more than double the number of Peers speaking in opposition to the Bill compared to those who supported it. A further three Peers did not take a position.
This is the opposite of Second Reading in the House of Commons, where a majority of MPs who spoke did so in favour of the Bill (25 spoke in favour, 21 spoke in opposition).
This indicates that the House of Lords is likely to be significantly more opposed than supportive of the Bill, and given that the House of Lords can reject the Bill, the Bill is increasingly looking like it will never become law.
House of Lords within its constitutional remit to block the Bill
Since the Bill is not a Government Bill and was not part of a manifesto promise, the Lords are constitutionally entitled to block or heavily amend the Bill.
In a piece for The Spectator, Former No.10 Director of Legislative Affairs, Nikki da Costa, explained that the House of Lords is under no duty to pass a Private Members’ Bill such as the assisted suicide Bill, particularly as it was not part of the Government’s manifesto.
Constitutional scholar Professor Mark Elliott also explained that for bills of this kind, the Lords can lawfully withhold consent or use the “ping-pong” process to prevent agreement between the Houses, meaning the Bill would fail.
Further commentary in The Spectator stresses that blocking a controversial Private Members’ Bill is well within the Lords’ remit, given their constitutional role as a revising chamber.
Sky Deputy Political Editor Sam Coates noted that even a senior Government figure who supports the Bill admitted that “the chances of it passing are worse than 50/50.”
Proponent of assisted suicide misleading over Lords’ ability to reject Bill
Lord Falconer, long-time proponent of the legalisation of assisted suicide (who has attempted to change the law on assisted suicide on seven previous occasions), has said it is not the role of the Lords to reject this Bill, despite the fact that, as a Peer, he has voted against numerous Bills with Commons approval.
In an interview on the BBC’s Today programme after the Leadbeater Bill narrowly passed Third Reading in the House of Commons in June, Lord Falconer was asked whether the role of the Lords was to “ultimately uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with”. He replied “That’s correct”.
However, as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Lord Falconer has not always abided by the principle that the role of the Lords is to uphold the decisions of the Commons.
In fact, on at least six occasions, Lord Falconer has either directly opposed Bills approved by the House of Commons or sought to amend legislation in ways not approved by the Commons.
Peers note “it is increasingly unlikely that this Bill will pass at Third Reading”
After the debate, Lord Jackson of Peterborough said “This kind of opposition at Second Reading is a clear indication of the direction the Bill is heading. The strength of concern voiced today makes it increasingly unlikely that this Bill will pass at Third Reading, and momentum is clearly against it”.
“The Lords have a responsibility to protect the most disadvantaged in society, and the strength of opposition today indicates we are not prepared to pass legislation that would put those people at risk”.
Former Paralympian and outspoken opponent of the assisted suicide Bill, Baroness Grey-Thompson, said “Today, many more Peers spoke against the Bill than in favour, with dozens voicing concerns about the risks it poses to the most disadvantaged in our communities and the lack of proper safeguards. This Bill is not a Government Bill and was not part of a manifesto promise, so the Lords are constitutionally entitled to reject this Bill”.
“The debate was conducted with a significant degree of calm and dignity. The message from today was unequivocal: we must protect the most disadvantaged in society”, she added.
Lord Moylan said “It’s clear from today’s debate that a majority of peers are deeply troubled by this Bill, either in principle or as to detail. The sheer number of peers who have spoken out against it shows the deep unease in the House about the harm this Bill will cause to the most vulnerable in our society”.
“It is clearly going to be very difficult for the promoters of this legislation to see it through all its stages before the end of the Parliamentary session”.
Peers line up to oppose the assisted suicide Bill
During the debate, former Prime Minister, Baroness May, gave a very strongly worded speech, saying “Suicide is wrong, but this Bill effectively says suicide is ok… It should not pass”.
Lord Polak spoke about having been prognosed with only six months to live himself, and why he opposes the Bill. He challenged the claim that a six-month prognosis is an adequate safeguard for assisted suicide: “I speak as someone who was given six months to live 37 years ago”.
Baroness Grey-Thomson warned that in Oregon, a model often cited by assisted suicide campaigners in the UK, the assisted suicide law keeps expanding – the 15-day wait was removed, the residency rules were scrapped, and the “terminal” definition was widened.
Former Attorney General, Baroness Prentis, spoke of her recent cancer diagnosis and why she opposes the Bill.
Baroness Monkton, whose daughter Dominique is the goddaughter of Princess Diana and has Down’s syndrome, spoke of strong opposition from a coalition of over 350 disability organisations.
Lord Kakkar, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London, highlighted that there are many worrying implications in the state paying for assisted suicide in its entirety while not adequately funding palliative care.
Former Health Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outlined concern that the funding for assisted suicide would come out of the budget for palliative care, because “that’s how NHS bodies think about funding”.
In a barnstorming speech, Lord Herbert dismantled arguments for assisted suicide, accusing the Bill of “crossing a Rubicon”, whereby the state would facilitate suicide. He rightly pointed out that the Bill does not even require someone to be in pain.
Assisted suicide supporter, Baroness Murphy, praised the Oregon & Canada models of assisted suicide, failing to mention that in Oregon, people with anorexia, diabetes and arthritis have been allowed to die, while Canada is set to introduce assisted suicide for mental illness in 2027.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “The large majority of Peers speaking in opposition to the Bill today at Second Reading suggests the House of Lords is currently significantly more opposed than supportive of the Bill. Given that the House of Lords can reject the Bill, the Bill is increasingly looking like it will never become law”.
“Vulnerable people in our society need our unwavering protection and the best quality care, not a pathway to assisted suicide. Evidence from abroad shows that, if this legislation becomes law, large numbers of vulnerable people nearing the end of life would be pressured or coerced into ending their lives”.
“With the NHS described by our Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, as ‘broken’, and every year, 100,000 people still dying without the palliative care they need, this assisted suicide legislation is a disaster waiting to happen”.
Further highlight video segments are available on our X account here.
