Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
Peers have urged for additional time to thoroughly debate the proposed legislation on assisted dying in England and Wales amid its slow advancement through the House of Lords. The bill, introduced by a backbench MP, has attracted more than 900 amendments—a number experts believe may be unprecedented for such legislation. Supporters argue that the high volume of proposed changes is primarily a tactic to delay the bill’s progress, while opponents maintain that substantial modifications are necessary to safeguard vulnerable individuals and ensure the framework’s safe implementation.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was approved by MPs in June and passed its initial stage in the Lords in September, seeks to allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to request assistance in dying. The process would require approval from two doctors and a panel consisting of a social worker, a senior legal expert, and a psychiatrist. For the bill to become law, both Houses of Parliament must agree on its final wording before the current parliamentary session concludes next spring.
On Friday, the House of Lords devoted nearly five hours to discussing proposed amendments, marking the beginning of at least four days of a detailed, clause-by-clause review known as the committee stage. Despite this, peers only managed to debate two out of the ten expected amendment groups, specifically those related to the bill’s application in Wales and adjustments to its eligibility criteria. Consequently, just seven of the extensive list of amendments were discussed. Several peers expressed concerns that four days would be insufficient for the comprehensive scrutiny required.
Lord Andrew Tyrie, while supporting the bill’s goals, described it as “demonstrably flawed” and suggested the government should assume control over the draft legislation. He warned of the risk that the bill might be “talked out” due to the cumbersome amendment process and emphasized the need for broad national consultation and consensus-building before returning to the House. Legal expert Lord Pannick KC echoed the importance of thorough scrutiny, stating that the inability to properly examine the bill would harm the House’s reputation. Contrarily, Baroness Gisela Stuart doubted the bill could ever achieve legislative readiness through debate alone. Given that this private member’s bill was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater rather than the government, and with the government declining to allocate extra time to it, the bill remains vulnerable to delay. However, Lord Roy Kennedy indicated that more committee stage sessions could be added if necessary, and those backing the bill are optimistic extra time will be granted.
Supporters contend that deliberate efforts to impede the bill’s progress are underway, with one peer describing Friday’s debate as “an attempt to filibuster the bill.” Filibustering involves using procedural tactics, including lengthy speeches or raising unnecessary points, to exhaust the debate time and prevent the bill from advancing. To counteract such delays, proponents might propose a motion to end the committee stage on a predetermined date. Opponents, like Baroness Elizabeth Berridge, argue that the ongoing scrutiny is necessary to address major issues such as the bill’s implications for devolution and its interaction with the Mental Capacity Act. She asserted that peers are performing vital work that MPs had failed to complete, ensuring the legislation is both safe and workable. The bill is being treated as a matter of conscience across parties, meaning members are not directed on how to vote. If enacted, the government would have up to four years to establish an assisted dying service, making 2030 the earliest possible date for its introduction
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.