by Henry Hill, The Critic
It is both technically justifiable and materially right to do
With Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (henceforth “Leadbeater Bill”) having passed third reading in the House of Commons, it has now moved to the House of Lords. We are thus being treated to an almighty row about whether or not the peers could legitimately block the bill.
On the one side you have even typically progressive constitutional scholars, such as Professor Mark Elliot; on the other you have Charlie Falconer, the former New Labour lord chancellor and justice secretary who now sits as a Labour peer, as well as various pundits.
The argument against is, more or less, a very basic misunderstanding (if we’re generous) of the Lords’ constitutional position in Parliament — that the undemocratic house must in all circumstances give way to the democratic house.
It is true that in our constitution it is held that the will of the Commons must ultimately prevail. There are, however, specific mechanisms by which this happens; the most obvious two are the Salisbury Convention, which holds that the peers will not block legislation promised in a government’s manifesto, and the Parliament Act procedure, which allows the Commons to force a bill through against the Lords’ wishes after a delay.
The very existence of these mechanisms ought to be compelling evidence that the upper house is not obliged simply to defer to the lower; were that the case, both would be otiose. Falconer probably knows this, because he has several times voted down legislation which had passed the Commons, including one in 2015 with a majority only one smaller than the Leadbeater Bill’s.
Read also: Assisted suicide has won the battle, not the war by Kevin Yuill, spiked