House of Lords' undemocratic attempt to scupper assisted dying Bill will cause constitutional crisis

Only part-way through its Lords’ journey, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has attracted 1,000, yes that does say one thousand, amendments. More amendments than any piece of legislation since what became the Companies Act in 2005-2006 and, as more can be added right up until the final sitting, there could be more.

But it’s not simply the volume that is the potential problem and the cause of outrage from campaigners including Dame Esther Rantzen. Their plea to the Lords is that they should not sabotage democracy by blocking a Bill which was not only supported by a majority of elected MPs, but has the backing of three-quarters of the British public.

Because it is obvious from many of those proposed changes already tabled that this is exactly the aim. That they are trying to talk it out in an immature and potentially dangerous attempt to stifle its progress.

READ MORE: MSPs to consider almost 300 amendments to landmark assisted dying bill

For example, one amendment insists that anyone seeking an assisted death must not have left the UK in the previous 12 months. Another demands a negative pregnancy test before being able to proceed. There are an estimated 21 amendments for each page of the legislation.

Though my name was on the Bill, and I worked hard to win support for its passage, I have always made it clear that I was not doing so because it is the choice that I would personally make. But I do know that I want to be able to make the decision. I voted for choice. To give people choice.

That is my job as a Member of Parliament, to ensure people are empowered to make the best decisions for them. That was the decision that the elected members made. To give those who are terminally ill a choice at the end of life. To offer them both quality palliative care and the choice of an assisted death.

READ MORE: Assisted dying legislation discriminates against disabled people, warns top KC

What those attempting to kill this Bill are doing by ensuring it is talked out and runs out of time goes against everything that I believe in, and we as a parliament stand for.

If they persist, they run the risk that the Parliament Act, established in 1911 to remove The Lords’ veto on legislation is tested. That in itself could open the door to a wider discussion on the upper house, the potential for constitutional crisis and ultimately reform.

My own party, the Liberal Democrats, have long been in favour of reform, having tried to introduce an elected upper chamber in the 2010-15 parliament. It was also our predecessor Liberal party which introduced the Parliament Act in response to attempts to block the 1909 People’s Budget.

If they continue to push against the expressed will of the democratic majority, the Lords may find that it is their own future which becomes the question. At the end of the day, democracy must and shall prevail.

Christine Jardine is the Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West