The Assisted Dying Bill is back in the House of Lords chambers today. Thankfully, it appears that the horrific bill is finally due to be properly scrutinised by the Lords.
Previously, on the Assisted Dying Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, to give it its full name, has had a controversy-soaked journey. It was rushed through the Commons, despite the bill barely being written before MPs had to vote. At the MP committee stage, disabled campaigners opposing the bill had to fight to be included. They even tried to exclude key opposers from disability rights groups and medical professionals. They were eventually allowed to take part, with very short notice.
The Commons committee stage also excluded its own disabled committee members at one point. Naz Shah, who was a part of the committee and opposed the bill, had to leave the session after her hearing aids ran out. The fact that she repeatedly raised the issue with Leadbeater suggests it was a deliberate exclusion tactic.
Then we move onto the Lord stage. There were so many peers wishing to speak at the debate that it had to be spread over two days. Despite around two-thirds of speakers being against the bill, it still progressed to the committee stage. This has also not been without controversy. As the Canary revealed last week, the Lords Committee restricted the evidence that they would take into consideration.
Not all think assisted dying should face scrutiny
Well, now it’s back in the Lords’ chamber, where, rightly so Bills are scrutinised after committee stage. It was reported by ITV’s Paul Brand that 942 amendments are scheduled for the bill. Brand said on Twitter:
This is believed to be a record for a bill at committee stage. It’s going to be an intense debate.
Brand went on to say that this could be an attempt to filibuster the bill. However, as many Peers pointed out, this is routine for them. Baroness Claire Fox replied:
Fact Check. I beg to differ, as someone who sat through all 947 amendments to bloody Online Safety Bill. And please don’t mention 1249 amendments to Levelling Up Bill.
She continued:
Key point: amending Assisted Dying Bill by trying to add crucial safeguards= literally a matter of life or death
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who’s been a staunch campaigner against Assisted Dying tweeted:
Literally our job is to scrutinise legislation line by line. Would not apologise for doing that.
Brand later doubled down on his assessment that there were too many amendments by posting that 579 of the amendments came from just seven peers. He also said:
Supporters of the bill say this is an attempt to “strangle the bill by procedural delay”
Grey-Thompson, who had the 2nd highest number of amendments, informed him that she had asked for some of her amendments to be downgraded, which would require less debate and had not heard back.
The shenanigans aren’t coming from opposition
Meanwhile, former Downing Street advisor Nikki Da Costa informed Brand that, as Lord Falconer is in charge of grouping the debate, it could still be a farce.
She replied:
When Falconer is in charge of grouping, should one take at face value that he got it right first time? Or might he try and skew things in his favour so that difficult issues get less air time?
To illustrate this, she points out that the amendment group called “Drafting changes” Falconer has lumped in issues around the patient understanding the doctor. This is definitely not a drafting change, but by putting it in there, it will receive less attention.
As Dan Hitchens pointed out, Falconer himself has tabled many amendments to his own bloody bill! He said:
Lord Falconer has tabled 35. If every peer followed his example, there would be a total of 28,945 amendments.
“For” assisted dying side attempts to sway public opinion, again
As if the ‘for’ side wasn’t already proving how much they’re attempting to sway the public opinion, they dropped another clanger yesterday afternoon. It was reported on Twitter, again by Brand, that 65 peers had written to every member of the Lords, urging them to block the bill. The letter claims that:
By the Government’s own Impact Assessment, it stands as the strongest and safest assisted dying proposal in the world.
However, as Professor Katherine Sleeman, who’s in charge of Palliative care at King’s College, points out, this is not mentioned in the impact assessment.
What’s truly extraordinary about this letter, though, is that despite it being posted on social media at 3:20pm, Baroness Grey-Thompson said she didn’t receive it until 7pm. The fact they didn’t actually send it to peers until four-hours after giving it to the press shows their real motives
This is all a very obvious attempt to discredit those in opposition to the bill and paint them as time-wasting naysayers who are happy for people to die. When in fact the opposite is true, opposers of the bill are very aware that this could lead to many being coerced to kill themselves, and want to stop that by any means possible. The fact that this is being painted negatively shows how little society thinks of disabled people.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via this RSS feed