LONDON — MPs should force assisted dying reforms into law if the unelected House of Lords fails to reach a decision, according to the former president of Britain’s highest court.

David Neuberger was U.K. Supreme Court president between 2012 and 2017, the highest-ranked judge in Britain’s top court, said the assisted dying bill should become law — even if the U.K. parliament’s upper house doesn’t approve the major change.

The bill to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and completed its House of Commons stages last June. It returns to the House of Lords for fresh scrutiny Friday.

The legislation has faced significant hurdles in the Lords. More than 1,000 amendments have been put forward during its committee stage in the upper chamber, and some peers have been accused of filibustering to prevent the bill passing by the end of the parliamentary session when private members’ bills fall if unresolved. The next King’s Speech, marking the start of a new session, is expected in May.

Neuberger, who is in favor of legalizing assisted dying, said Leadbeater and Labour peer Charlie Falconer, an ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, are correct to suggest using the Parliament Act if the bill is not approved before the end of the session.

The Parliament Act, a rarely-used law, allows the government to pass legislation without the approval of the House of Lords.

“I think something like that’s right,” Neuberger said. “The difficult question, and it’s very much a political question, is how much time and how much indulgence … to give to those who are trying to stop a decision one way or the other being made on the bill.

“The time has come for that sort of decision to be made.”

The Lords is a self-regulating chamber which has no time limit on speeches, and allows peers to speak to any amendment. Neuberger sits in the chamber as a crossbench peer, meaning he isn’t aligned to a political party.

Though he supports the flexibility of the Lords system, Neuberger said the behavior of peers over assisted dying could be a catalyst for reform of the unelected upper chamber.

“If it’s felt, and I think with some justification it’s felt, that the present system has been shown to be unsatisfactory, then it must be right, at least, to have a serious debate about how things could and should be changed,” he said. 

Blocking vs scrutiny

Opponents to assisted dying in the Lords argue they are undertaking necessary scrutiny to expose holes in the safeguards. These include the role artificial intelligence plays in the process, how the bill applies to someone who is pregnant, in prison or homeless, and whether assessments for eligibility must be face-to-face.

Neuberger said it would be “a failure of the system” if the Lords doesn’t reach a decision by the spring. “In the end, there has to be a decision one way or the other,” he said, while also acknowledging “the way you get there is, inevitably, quite often messy.” 

Private members’ bills are only scrutinized on Fridays. The government, which as a whole remains neutral on the sensitive matter of conscience, despite Starmer’s personal support, has refused to divert government time to the legislation.

The bill needs to complete its Lords committee and report stages, pass a third reading, and the Commons must consider peers’ amendments before it can become law. 

Senior government figures, including Wes Streeting, are personally opposed to the change. The health secretary would not confirm the bill is safe when asked directly for his assessment at a committee hearing last December. He earlier warned “setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. There isn’t a budget for this.” 

Neuberger said ministers have a duty to implement the law, regardless of their personal stance. “The fact that there are laws you don’t agree with … is inevitable because there are so many laws, and you can’t be expected to agree with all of them.

“And if you are remotely worthy of your job as a minister or as a judge, you will and should apply the law.”