At the moment, however, there is no guarantee that the Lords could amend the bill without effectively wrecking it. That’s because any amendments added by the Lords need to go back to the Commons, which, combined with a shortage of time for private members’ bills, could mean the whole thing gets cut off by the end of the parliamentary session.
Daniel Gover, senior lecturer in British politics at Queen Mary University of London, called this an “overlooked” element of the bill and urged ministers to give “a firm commitment” that they will find time to consider any Lords amendments.
House of experts
The other unique feature of the Lords is its wealth of expertise, with many peers drawn from the fields of law, medicine, religion and human rights.
While some of the most prominent critics of assisted dying reside in the Lords, the upper chamber should not be seen as automatically more resistant to the plan than the Commons.
A similar bill introduced by crossbencher Molly Meacher passed its first hurdle unopposed in 2021 before running out of time.
One crossbench peer said they hoped the Lords could help improve the bill by drawing on their experience without being subject to the same “extreme pressure” being put on MPs, many of whom are new to parliament and juggling legislation with other duties.
The same peer quipped: “We also have a special interest because quite a few of us are, what should we say, closer to the end of life than those in the Commons.”
