Peers opposed to assisted dying say they see “massive problems” in a bill to legalise it in England and Wales, as the proposed legislation returns to Parliament later.
The House of Lords is due to begin a two-day debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Supporters have urged peers to “respect” the decision by MPs in June to back the bill, and not try to overturn it. Opponents insist the bill is flawed and needs to be changed.
A committee of peers this week warned the level of scrutiny given to the bill so far was “concerning”. But Lord Falconer, the former Labour Justice Secretary who will champion the legislation in the Lords, has said the bill had been “very thoroughly debated in the Commons”.
Baroness Luciana Berger, a leading opponent of the bill, has tabled an amendment calling for a committee to take further evidence from professionals and ministers before it is debated in the Lords.
Former Labour MP Baroness Berger said: “It is really unfortunate that the House of Lords is having to interrogate such an underdeveloped piece of legislation that hasn’t yet been properly scrutinised.”
She said: “The uncomfortable truth is this Bill is silent on a whole raft of issues which means we are in the dark about how assisted dying would work in practice.”
Allies denied her amendment was a delaying tactic, saying the committee would have to report by the end of the year.
In a report released on Thursday, the House of Lords Constitution Committee said the “degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government bill.
“This is especially concerning given the subject matter of the bill.”
A different Lords committee earlier this week also warned it “gives sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the government”.
But speaking to BBC News, Lord Falconer said: “The Commons has decided that there should be assisted dying as an option for those who are terminally ill. We should respect that decision.”
He added: “We can look at ways that we can improve the legislation which comes from them but we respect the decisions of the Commons, for obvious reasons. We are appointed, they are elected. It is for the elected representatives of this country to decide whether or not it’s right that we now move to an assisted dying bill.”
He said an attempt to block or wreck the bill would not “be remotely appropriate.”
The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death.
Approval would need to be granted by two doctors and a panel of a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Almost 200 peers are expected to speak in the debate, including the former prime minister Baroness May, dozens of former ministers and five bishops.
Unusually the bill will have two days, rather than one, for an initial debate on the bill as a whole – known as second reading. That is partly because so many have requested to speak.
However, the bill is not expected to face any significant votes on Friday or on the second day of initial debate on 19 September.
They will come later in the autumn when the bill returns to the House of Lords and peers will suggest changes, or amendments. They are likely to cover concerns about people being coerced into ending their lives, the safeguards in place, how to decide whether someone has the mental capacity to make the decision, and how the process is delivered with many details currently left to be decided by ministers.
It is difficult to predict how likely it is the Lords will approve significant changes. Both opponents and supporters of the bill say it will depend on a number of cross-bench peers who do not have a party allegiance.
If the Lords do pass amendments that Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who is bringing the bill, does not agree with, she could try to overturn them in the Commons before it returns to the Lords for a second time, a process known as ping-pong. That could take several weeks.
However, sources in favour of the bill are confident it will pass, claiming they are not anticipating anything that could be fatal to its chances.
Both sides acknowledge a significant development in the bill’s chances of becoming law was when the government announced the parliamentary “session” would last until the spring.
That is thought to give the legislation enough time to clear all its parliamentary hurdles.
If there are significant delays and the bill did not clear all the parliamentary stages by the spring, the process would have to start again with a new bill unless Sir Keir Starmer adopted it as a parliamentary bill.
