Top News

Assisted dying legislation could be forced through without the agreement of the House of Lords, supporters have suggested. Hardline opponents have been accused of deliberately running down the clock during debates by filibustering and tabling unnecessary amendments. The bill will fall if it does not pass a third reading vote in the Lords, with both Houses agreeing on the final text, before the end of the Parliamentary session - which is expected to be in early May.

Its sponsor in the House of Lords, Lord Charlie Falconer, has condemned the behaviour of a minority of peers. He warned that if opponents do not allow the debate to progress fairly, supporters may invoke the Parliament Act in the next session. This rarely-used piece of legislation allows MPs to force a bill through without the agreement of the Lords.

Lord Falconer said: "Together with Kim Leadbeater MP, who introduced the bill in the Commons, I have sought advice on the possible ways forward and it is clear to me that, while we would strongly urge the Lords to come to a conclusion while there is still time, the Parliament Act is an option.

"One way or another, Parliament has to come to a decision on this." Use of the Parliament Act would involve re-introducing the same bill to the Commons in the next parliamentary session and repeating the necessary votes among MPs.

The legislation would either need to be adopted by an MP drawn high in the Private Members' bill ballot, which allows backbench MPs to introduce new laws, or by the Government.

Only seven Acts of Parliament have been passed using this procedure since the Act was introduced in 1911, according to the Hansard Society.

Some experts have questioned whether the Parliament Act can be used in this way for a Private Member's bill. However, supporters are confident there are precedents in connection with previous conscience issues.

Lord Falconer said the bill had the support of the elected chamber, the majority of the public and four former directors of public prosecutions.

He added: "Thousands of families with personal experience of the cruelty and injustice of the current law are depending on Parliament to deliver on the promise to legislate.

"If opponents think this issue will just go away if it's talked out in the Lords then they are wrong. It will continue to demand parliamentary action until it is resolved."

More than half of the 1,200 amendments tabled in the Lords have been put forward by just seven opponents of the bill. Of the 59 clauses in the bill, Peers have not yet concluded debate on Clause 1.

Lord Falconer said there was still time for the House to "do its proper job of scrutiny and proposing amendments so that the bill can go back to the Commons before the end of the session".

He added: "That is what should happen and that continues to be my aim. However, because the Lords is a self-regulating chamber there is no mechanism to prevent a small minority of peers frustrating the will of the majority who want to see the bill progress through all its stages."