House of Lords Rebels Against Assisted Dying Bill with Last-Ditch Amendments
In a desperate bid to block the assisted dying bill, dozens of peers in the House of Lords have tabled over 1,000 amendments to the legislation, many of them tabled by fierce opponents of the measure. The amendments are seen as an attempt to run down the clock and potentially halt the passage of the bill.
The moves come as the bill, which was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in the Commons, has already passed through that chamber with a narrow majority. However, its fate is far from certain as it now faces scrutiny in the House of Lords.
Critics of the bill argue that it is not in line with the government's manifesto and therefore the rules governing primacy between the two chambers do not apply. Without the power to limit or group amendments, peers are free to introduce a plethora of changes, many of which may be aimed at weakening or even blocking the bill.
In a letter signed by 65 prominent figures including former Labour leader Neil Kinnock and former Tory leader Ruth Davidson, opponents of the bill have warned that it would be undemocratic for the Lords to kill the bill after it has been passed by a reasonable majority in the Commons. They argue that their role is to test and refine the legislation while respecting the will of elected Members and the public's overwhelming support.
However, Labour MP Luciana Berger has dismissed the peer's claims as "hypocritical" given the EHRC's criticism of the bill's equality impact assessment and concerns over its safety and workability. Berger also pointed out that palliative care developments have slowed in legislatures that have introduced assisted dying laws.
Despite these challenges, many supporters of the bill remain confident that it will pass, with some peers having tabled hundreds of amendments to try to address concerns about its safety and efficacy. As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the future of the assisted dying bill hangs in the balance, and the fate of those who are fighting for or against it remains uncertain.
In a desperate bid to block the assisted dying bill, dozens of peers in the House of Lords have tabled over 1,000 amendments to the legislation, many of them tabled by fierce opponents of the measure. The amendments are seen as an attempt to run down the clock and potentially halt the passage of the bill.
The moves come as the bill, which was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in the Commons, has already passed through that chamber with a narrow majority. However, its fate is far from certain as it now faces scrutiny in the House of Lords.
Critics of the bill argue that it is not in line with the government's manifesto and therefore the rules governing primacy between the two chambers do not apply. Without the power to limit or group amendments, peers are free to introduce a plethora of changes, many of which may be aimed at weakening or even blocking the bill.
In a letter signed by 65 prominent figures including former Labour leader Neil Kinnock and former Tory leader Ruth Davidson, opponents of the bill have warned that it would be undemocratic for the Lords to kill the bill after it has been passed by a reasonable majority in the Commons. They argue that their role is to test and refine the legislation while respecting the will of elected Members and the public's overwhelming support.
However, Labour MP Luciana Berger has dismissed the peer's claims as "hypocritical" given the EHRC's criticism of the bill's equality impact assessment and concerns over its safety and workability. Berger also pointed out that palliative care developments have slowed in legislatures that have introduced assisted dying laws.
Despite these challenges, many supporters of the bill remain confident that it will pass, with some peers having tabled hundreds of amendments to try to address concerns about its safety and efficacy. As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the future of the assisted dying bill hangs in the balance, and the fate of those who are fighting for or against it remains uncertain.
theyre literally trying to block the assisted dying bill with over 1000 amendments 
like wut r they tryin to do? its gonna be so hard 4 them 2 pass wit all those changes 
my heart goes out 2 luciana berger tho, she's like totally right 2 call out the hypocrisy 
peeps who oppose assisted dying are just tryna delay the inevitable 
. Just pass it already! 
I mean, what's the point of having a House of Lords if they're just gonna make a bunch of amendments outta thin air? Like, can't they just have a chill conversation about it instead of trying to run down the clock? 
Meanwhile, I'm over here thinking "let's just pass the bill already and move on". 
This is a total power struggle between the Lords and the Commons. It's like they're trying to outmaneuver each other. I mean, 1,000 amendments? That's just ridiculous! 
But what's interesting is that Labour is pushing back hard against these amendments. It's like they're trying to show that they're not going to be bullied by the Lords.
. Its like, the Lords have a right to review laws but not to just change them completely 
. The fact that some ppl are saying its undemocratic is kinda rich considering how EHRC has criticized the bill's equality impact 
. Either way, this whole thing is making me feel anxious for those who might benefit from this law 
.
.
. Anyway, it's clear that this is a highly emotive issue, and I just hope that everyone involved can remain calm and have a respectful discussion about it 
.
... thousands of amendments? That's like me trying to edit a video with over 1000 different effects and transitions – it'd be a mess! 
Meanwhile, some people arguing that the Lords can't block the bill because it wasn't in line with their manifesto? Um, didn't they vote for the government back then? 
and what's up with these politicians always trying to "refine" the legislation while some people's lives are literally hanging in the balance 
. I get that there are concerns about safety and efficacy, but can't they just have a straightforward conversation about it instead of all these back-and-forth amendments? 
.
. Like, how many people are really getting a nuanced understanding of this issue through those articles? It's almost like they're trying to whip up public opinion rather than provide actual context 
. Can't we just try to have a real conversation about what this means for our society? 
]
. If 1k amendments is a "desperate bid to block" the bill, why aren't they putting their money where their mouth is? Like, where's the actual evidence that these changes won't just lead to more delays and more debate? 
