Harriet Harman’s Version of the Constitution: Wrong, Misleading, and Quickly Debunked by Lawyers

A statement by former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman about the constitutional role of the House of Lords has prompted widespread correction from legal commentators and a Community Note on Twitter, after she asserted that peers were acting “constitutionally wrong” by blocking the Assisted Dying Bill.

Harriet Harman triggered widespread pushback after posting a claim on Twitter about the House of Lords’ powers over the Assisted Dying Bill, a claim that was quickly marked with a Community Note and corrected by constitutional lawyers.

Her comment, presented with the moral certainty that has become her trademark, was swiftly dismantled by experts who pointed out that she misstated basic parliamentary rules.

Harman wrote:

“Lords role is to scrutinise, not to block this bill. It is role of elected MPs to make important public policy decisions. Constitutionally wrong for unelected Lords to frustrate Commons, and go against overwhelming public support for Assisted Dying Bill.”

Within hours, legal commentators, academics, and barristers were pointing out that Harman’s statement was simply wrong. The Community Note beneath her post stated clearly:

“There are no formal limits on the Lords’ power to reject a private members bill, so Harriet Harman is incorrect.”

This is constitutionally accurate. Private Members’ Bills, particularly those not backed by the Government, are not protected by the Parliament Acts. The Lords have full authority to stop them in their tracks.

Barrister Daniel ShenSmith put it bluntly:

“Entirely wrong, that is precisely what the Lords’ role is to do. Parliament is made up of two Houses for a very good reason.”

Selective Outrage and Convenient Amnesia

The backlash intensified as commentators noted the remarkable convenience of Harman’s argument. When the Lords intervened in Brexit legislation, or when they challenged the Rwanda Bill, Harman and her allies did not describe the chamber’s actions as “constitutionally wrong.” Yet now, faced with opposition to a sensitive and controversial Private Member’s Bill, she presents Lords scrutiny as democratic sabotage.

The inconsistency is difficult to ignore. So is the fact that this bill, which touches on profound ethical and medical questions, was not in any manifesto, is not government policy, and has not gone through the rigorous internal drafting processes that accompany major legislative reforms. Of all bills, this is one the Lords would be expected to dissect with unusual care.

The Privileges Committee Controversy Returns

Harman’s critics also revived the controversy surrounding her role as chair of the Commons Privileges Committee during the investigation into Boris Johnson.

The Committee’s decision to adopt a broader interpretative framework, one that legal commentators said amounted to applying standards retrospectively, was attacked at the time as unfair and as shifting the goalposts mid-inquiry. Harman rejected those criticisms, but the perception that she had widened definitions after the fact has persisted among many observers. As one legal commentator stated: “Boris didn’t stand a chance. He would have had to be a fortune-teller.”

Her latest constitutional misstatement has reinforced the view among detractors that she presents personal interpretations as constitutional fact, even when the law says otherwise.

A Bill Without Mandate and Lords With Full Authority

Whatever one’s position on assisted dying, the constitutional question is not ambiguous. This is a Private Member’s Bill, it carries no manifesto mandate, and peers have full authority to reject it if they consider it poorly drafted, insufficiently scrutinised, or potentially dangerous.

That, after all, is exactly why a second chamber exists, to challenge legislation when the Commons pushes through measures lacking clarity, democratic mandate, or sound drafting. To suggest that peers are forbidden from doing so is not just wrong, it is a basic misunderstanding of parliamentary structure.

Harman’s assertion that the Lords were acting “constitutionally wrong” was inaccurate, promptly corrected, and heavily criticised by those who actually work with constitutional law. Her statement fits a broader pattern, presenting political preferences as constitutional certainties and brushing aside legal reality when it is inconvenient.

The Assisted Dying Bill may deserve debate, but the claim that the Lords are forbidden to block it is simply false. The second chamber is entitled, and sometimes duty-bound, to halt legislation that lacks mandate, proper scrutiny, or competent drafting. Let’s hope it does so over Keir Starmer’s disastrous Chagos deal.