"Personally, I would be in favour of peers throwing out the whole idea, which is what this dangerous and badly written bill surely deserves. But it is unlikely that they will want to go so directly against the Commons, especially on such a controversial issue. So instead I must hope that they listen to disabled people's groups, as well as legal and medical experts, and at least undo some of the lower house's most egregious errors."
"Although peers can't do anything about the fact that the bill is a private member's bill, which somewhat limits the scrutiny it endures, it can allocate more time to debating it. The Commons did dedicate several days to its second and third readings, but on both occasions many MPs who wanted to speak did not get the chance to do so."
The assisted dying bill is characterized as dangerous and badly written and merits rejection or significant amendment by the House of Lords. The Commons process lacked adequate scrutiny, with many MPs denied opportunities to speak during second and third readings. As a private member's bill, parliamentary scrutiny was limited, but the Lords can allocate more debate time and prioritize dissenting opinions. Peers are urged to listen to disabled people's groups, legal and medical experts, and those with expertise in disability rights, healthcare, and inequality. A slower, more thorough process should produce a safer bill that avoids precedent of rushed legislation.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]