Peers call for more time to debate assisted dying bill
As the bill progressed slowly in the House of Lords, colleagues called for more time to debate legislation that would lead to assisted dying in England and Wales.
More than 900 changes were suggested by colleagues; Experts believe this is a record number for a piece of legislation put forward by a reserve MP.
Supporters of the bill have expressed concerns that the amount of changes being put forward are delaying tactics, claiming there are deliberate attempts to stall progress.
But opponents say significant changes are needed to ensure vulnerable people are protected and any scheme operates safely.
MPs approved the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June and it passed its first stage in the Lords in September.
However, this legislation will only become law if both Houses of Parliament agree on the final draft, and approval must be obtained next year, i.e. before the end of the current session of Parliament.
The legislation proposes allowing terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to seek assisted dying.
This will be subject to approval by a panel that includes two doctors and a social worker, a senior lawyer and a psychiatrist.
The House of Lords spent almost five hours on Friday debating proposed changes to the bill; This was the first of at least four days of individual review, known as the committee phase.
But colleagues discussed only two of the 10 sets of amendments, covering how the bill would be implemented in Wales and proposals to amend its text on eligibility.
Some colleagues asked for more time to debate the bill, saying four days was not enough for the detailed review needed.
Lord Andrew Tyrie supported the bill’s intent but said it was “clearly flawed”.
He called on the government to take control of the draft law, warning that there was a risk of a statute of limitations for the legislation to be “articulated” and become law.
“[The government] National consultation is required. They need to consult widely. “They should try to reach as much consensus as possible and then come back to Parliament as an afterthought,” he said.
“I think trying to deal with these 900 amendments in this way is going to result in the bill being talked about.”
Leading lawyer Lord Pannick KC, who backed the bill, said: “There is unanimous agreement that this is a hugely important Bill.
“There is unanimity that this House must fulfill its constitutionally required function of examining the bill. If we fail to fulfill this duty due to timing, it would cause great harm to the reputation of this House.”
Baroness Gisela Stuart, meanwhile, argued that no matter how long the proposed legislation was debated, her colleagues did not think they could “get it to a stage where it is legally fit to be passed”.
The bill was put forward by Labor MP Kim Leadbeater rather than the government.
Although the government may choose to allocate extra time for such bills, known as private member’s bills, they are generally allocated less time than government legislation and so they can be vulnerable to delays.
Lord Roy Kennedy, who is responsible for managing the government’s legislative program in the upper house, told his colleagues that government time would not be allocated to the bill.
But he suggested that if necessary, more hearings could be held beyond the four days originally allotted for the committee phase.
Sources behind the bill told the BBC they were confident extra time would be given in the Lords if necessary.
Supporters of the bill claimed there were deliberate attempts to stall the bill’s progress.
“[Friday’s debate] “It wasn’t God at his best,” one told the BBC.
“This was an attempt to filibuster the bill and that will need to be dealt with.”
Filibustering means deliberately wasting time during a debate, for example by making overly long speeches or raising unnecessary procedural points, so that a bill is “talked out” and progress cannot be made within the time allowed.
One option for those who support passing the bill is a motion to end the committee phase on a specific day to stop any attempts to delay it.
But Baroness Elizabeth Berridge, who opposed the bill, said it was “a comprehensive debate examining important issues, including the devolution of the Terminally Ill Adults Act and the use of the Mental Capacity Act”.
He added: “Peers are now doing the job that MPs couldn’t do, ensuring this bill is safe and enforceable.”
The bill is being treated as a matter of conscience by the parties, meaning they will not instruct their MPs or colleagues on how to vote.
If the bill becomes law, the government has four years to introduce an assisted dying service, meaning the first assisted death could take up to 2030.
