Second chambers are a good idea, but they should not be able to overturn clear decisions reached by an elected body
If ever a British institution needed assistance in dying, it is the House of Lords. Its handling of the assisted dying bill on Friday of last week, continuing this week, is all but unconstitutional. A bill passed by the House of Commons after years of public debate is being blocked by a small group of peers under the pretence of scrutiny. Their purpose is to kill the bill by filibuster and impose their religious or moral views on the free will of others. They want to deny Britons a freedom now common in many liberal nations across the western world.
When the bill came to the Lords, just seven peers were responsible for 630 of 1,047 amendments now attached to it. They included a requirement that no one should be helped to die if they have been abroad in the previous year, or unless five doctors have assessed the application, or if a doctor has discussed dying with the patient (a so-called gag clause). Many amendments flatly contradict ones considered and rejected by the Commons. They pay no deference to the support for the bill of what is now a clear majority of public opinion. The intention is not to scrutinise the bill, but to kill it by exceeding the four days allotted to it. Since it is a private member’s bill, the government has declined to help. It should now adopt it and force it through.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
