Da Costa called the plan “extraordinary.” She said: “Last time round, MPs voted to allow the Lords to do their work. This is a very different vote. There will be no ‘off switch’ once it goes to the Lords. MPs will be asked if they’re happy with the bill — with all its deficiencies and all the evidence that has been heard — to become law.”
Opponents of the bill argue that the debates in the Lords have exposed holes in the law that the Commons scrutiny did not. One, Labour peer Luciana Berger, pointed out that the bill has sweeping powers and 59 clauses — far longer than any known private members’ bill, including those that allowed abortion and outlawed capital punishment.
“This process has shown that we can’t get a bill that is safe,” said Berger. “What are [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, who all as organizations say they are publicly neutral on the principle of assisted dying, but on this piece of legislation, have very substantive and significant concerns about this bill?” Falconer argued that these concerns had been dealt with during debates in the Lords.
Da Costa added: “Supporters promised to do the work in the Lords last time, they didn’t. Instead, Lord Falconer was looking at Parliament Acts before second reading — requesting government advice. They’ve wanted to do this from the start. It’s smoke and mirrors. They’ve always known that the Lords would never have enough time.” (Falconer described this claim as “completely false” and “rubbish,” saying he only considered the Parliament Acts once the bill was almost certainly doomed, and that while he had accepted some changes to the bill, he hadn’t made promises to change it at the outset.)
Leadbeater insisted she is “extremely open to the idea of making changes … but often people can’t tell you what they want those changes to be.” But Berger countered that “ninety-nine percent of the time, Charlie [Falconer] has rejected every single amendment.”
A prime example of this dispute is an amendment by the former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson, which would require people seeking an assisted death to have a pregnancy test. “This includes 72-year-old men,” said Falconer. “It’s absolutely ridiculous. These are such obvious filibustering techniques.” Berger acknowledged it could have been drafted better, but argued the amendment showed there had been scant consideration of what to do if pregnant women wanted to end their lives. “It’s a really good case in point about how this whole process has been completely inadequate,” she said.
Source:
www.politico.eu
