Da Costa described the plan as “extraordinary.” She stated: “Previously, MPs voted to let the Lords carry out their duties. This is a completely different vote. There will be no way to stop it once it reaches the Lords. MPs will decide if they’re comfortable with the bill — with all its shortcomings and the evidence presented — becoming law.”
Critics of the bill contend that the Lords’ debates have uncovered flaws in the legislation that Commons scrutiny missed. Luciana Berger, a Labour peer, highlighted that the bill comprises significant powers and 59 clauses — much longer than any known private members’ bill, including those that legalized abortion and banned capital punishment.
“This process has proven we can’t get a bill that is safe,” commented Berger. “What are the proponents saying about the medical colleges in this country — the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Medical Examiners, the Royal College of GPs, all of whom are publicly neutral on assisted dying, but have significant concerns about this piece of legislation?” Falconer claimed these issues were addressed during the Lords debates.
Da Costa remarked: “Supporters vowed to do the work in the Lords previously, but they didn’t. Instead, Lord Falconer considered Parliament Acts before the second reading — seeking government guidance. Their intention has always been clear. It’s misleading. They’ve always realized there would be insufficient time in the Lords.” (Falconer labeled this accusation as “completely false” and “nonsense,” asserting he only thought about the Parliament Acts when the bill was nearly doomed, and while he accepted some changes, he didn’t promise changes initially.)
Leadbeater emphasized she is “very open to amending the bill… but often people can’t specify what changes they seek.” However, Berger contended that “almost every amendment Charlie [Falconer] rejected.”
A key example of the disagreement is an amendment by former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson, which required a pregnancy test for those seeking assisted death. “This involves 72-year-old men,” said Falconer. “It’s utterly absurd. These are obvious stalling tactics.” While acknowledging it could have been better drafted, Berger argued the amendment indicated the lack of serious consideration for situations involving pregnant women seeking assisted dying. “It’s a prime example of this entire process being inadequate,” she stated.
Leave a Reply