Lords clash over assisted dying Bill ‘time wasting’

A former Cabinet minister has said she will not be “bullied” into silence over assisted dying, after Dame Esther Rantzen warned peers not to “sabotage democracy”.

Baroness Therese Coffey has tabled more than 60 amendments to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and indicated she was using the parliamentary process to raise her “concerns”.

Peers clashed on Friday over the length of time it was taking to see the draft new law through the Lords.

They are in the process of debating more than 1,000 amendments, during the Bill’s committee stage.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town suggested some of the proposed changes were tabled in a bid to wind down the clock, so the Lords would run out of time to finish their deliberations.

If this happens, assisted dying proposals – which MPs supported in a vote earlier this year – would fall.

Lady Hayter said her question was whether peers tabling amendments would support the Bill, if they could “agree on a form of wording”.

The Labour peer said: “My feeling is that these amendments are not actually about making the Bill acceptable so that those putting them forward could then support it, but actually, it’s a way of trying to stop our discussion and proper scrutiny, because what they don’t want, actually, is for the Bill to go ahead as it is.”

Former High Court judge Baroness Butler-Sloss rose to oppose Lady Hayter’s remarks.

“There are many of us who don’t like the Bill, but there is a real probability the Bill will pass,” the crossbench peer said.

“And if the Bill passes, we want it better than it is at the moment. Consequently, we are not wasting time.”

Lady Hayter replied she was not suggesting peers were “wasting time”.

And Lady Coffey, a former health secretary, later said: “I’m not going to be bullied by people into not raising my concerns.”

Concerns that peers were taking too long to debate large groups of amendments “would actually encourage” members to de-group their amendments, the Conservative said, so instead of having a smaller number of themed debates, they would draw up a long list with a large number of exchanges.

In their debate last Friday, peers spent almost five hours discussing seven amendments.

Lord Carlile of Berriew, who is now a crossbench peer, said he “was so depressed” during the exchanges, he had to take a coffee break.

The former barrister and MP said: “We spent three hours a week ago talking about the difference between ‘ability’ and ‘capacity’, I was so depressed that eventually I had to go out for a coffee break.

“And I think that we need to avoid that sort of elongated and depressing debate.”

In a message to the Lords, recorded in conversation with her daughter Rebecca Wilcox, Childline founder and former broadcaster Dame Esther said she thought assisted dying opponents “should have the choice” to share their disapproval.

“The particular circumstances of the Bill are up to those parliamentarians who have been looking at it with such care and professionalism, and we want to get it right,” she said.

“But don’t tell me that 900-plus amendments is about getting it right.”

The 85-year-old, who is terminally ill with cancer, said: “What I’m saying to you is: don’t try and sabotage democracy.

“Give us all the choice that you would want yourself. And then we can die in dignity, pain-free, and leave our families and our loved ones with happy memories. That’s all we ask.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced questions about the Lords’ conduct earlier this week.

Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse at Prime Minister’s Questions shared his fear that “technical or procedural manoeuvres” might be used to prevent Parliament from reaching a decision.

“Scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords is a matter for the Lords, but the Government does have a responsibility to make sure that any legislation which passes through Parliament is workable, is effective and, of course, enforceable,” Sir Keir replied.

He had earlier said: “The Government is neutral on the passage of the Bill.

“It is a matter of conscience, and there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide at the end on any changes in this chamber.”