An overwhelming 72% of peers who expressed an opinion in the debate on the first day of the committee stage spoke in opposition to the assisted suicide bill.
An analysis of the speeches completed by Right to Life UK’s policy team, found that of the 47 peers who made speeches and took a position on the bill, 34 (72%) spoke in opposition and 13 (28%) spoke in favour.
This represents more than double the number of peers speaking in opposition to the bill compared to those who supported it. Two peers did not take a position in their speeches.
This is an even higher percentage of peers opposing the bill than across the two days of the second reading, which was 67% against and 33% for.
Peers thoroughly debated devolution and mental capacity over a five-hour period.
The bill’s sponsor in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer, had wanted to conclude 10 groups of amendments in just five hours, allowing only 30 minutes each to discuss a wide range of issues.
Right to Life UK says the bill would not have received proper scrutiny if it had followed such a compressed timetable.
Speeches from Lord Gove, Lord Harper, and Lord Mackinlay received particular attention online. Lord Falconer had to declare an interest that he had had literature funded by an assisted suicide campaign organisation and a funded assistant to work on the bill.
Ahead of day one of committee stage, 957 amendments were tabled or sponsored by 57 separate peers, who come from all sides of the house and both sides of the argument.
Lord Falconer himself tabled 35 of the amendments – if every sitting peer had followed his example, there would be 28,875 amendments.
Leading KC and legal expert Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, confirmed that peers can reject the flawed assisted suicide bill.
Lord Gove argued that implementing assisted suicide in Wales against the clear wishes of the Senedd would do “real damage” to the fabric of devolution.
Lord Harper criticised peers for chatting during his speech.
“Getting this right matters,” he said, reminding peers they should have been listening.
Lord Mackinlay highlighted the fact that the drugs to be used in assisted suicide are unknown, saying that “heaven knows what” cocktail of chemicals could be used to end lives by assisted suicide.
Baroness Stuart said the bill “has so many flaws” and the Lords will not be able to make it fit to be passed.
She added: “We should not vote for anything that cannot legislatively be properly implemented.”
Baroness Coffey criticised Lord Markham for repeatedly interrupting key witness Dr Annabel Price, the representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who gave evidence to the committee.
Baroness Finlay highlighted that these prognoses are incorrect more often than not, saying: “A six-month prognosis has a 48% chance of being right.”
Baroness Scotland pointed out that since introducing assisted suicide, New Zealand has slid from the third best palliative-care system in the world to the twelfth.
Right to Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said: “The majority of peers speaking raised serious questions about the risks to vulnerable people and the gaps in the proposed legislation.
“Furthermore, issues relating to devolution in Wales are substantive practical issues, especially given the fact that the Senedd voted decisively to reject a motion calling for Westminster to introduce assisted suicide.
“Both the scrutiny in the chamber and the volume of amendments are encouraging, as they show parliament’s determination not to rush into introducing a law that would enable large numbers of vulnerable people nearing the end of life to be pressured or coerced into ending their lives.
“The increased opposition since the bill’s second reading in the House of Lords suggests it is increasingly likely peers will reject it and this assisted suicide bill will never become law.”
The House of Lords has the power to delay a bill by up to a year but cannot prevent it becoming law if the House of Commons presents it again unchanged.
