Disabled peer hits back at claims of ‘filibustering’ over ‘vague’ and ‘poorly drafted’ assisted suicide bill

A disabled peer has hit back at months of attacks on her and other opponents of the assisted suicide bill that accuse them of trying to block the legislation by “filibustering”.

Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson (pictured) is one of a handful of peers who have been targeted in the media – particularly in the Guardian and Observer newspapers – over their attempts to introduce stronger safeguards to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill.

Critics point to more than 1,250 amendments that have been tabled to the bill, which would apply only to England and Wales, although many of them have been proposed by those supporting the legislation.

Lord Falconer, the Labour peer sponsoring the bill in the Lords, has spoken to Sky News of a “minority of Lords blocking it”, while he and media commentators have repeatedly accused opponents of the bill of “filibustering”.

Filibustering is defined on the UK parliament website as MPs or peers deliberately wasting time during a debate “by making overlong speeches or raising unnecessary procedural points” in an attempt to prevent a bill from making progress.

But the bill’s opponents – including Baroness Grey-Thompson – say their amendments are crucial to add safeguards to a private members’ bill that is vague, unsafe and poorly-drafted.

Meanwhile, the parliaments of both Jersey and the Isle of Man have passed legislation to legalise assisted dying for some terminally-ill people, and are waiting for royal assent for their bills, while the Scottish parliament is preparing for a final vote – said to be “on a knife edge” – on its own legislation later this month.

The slow progress of the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill through the Lords means there is now unlikely to be enough time for it to become law before the end of the current parliamentary session in May.

But there are likely to be attempts to revive the bill in the next session and force it into law using the Parliament Act, although it would still need to be approved by MPs who have now been alerted to its many flaws following the months of detailed examination in the Lords.

Labour peer Lord [Jeff] Rooker told the Lords on Friday (27 February) that he was “getting really irritated by constantly hearing peers on the wireless complaining about filibustering.

“It has happened twice this week – it happens every week.

“The fact of the matter is that I have been here every day except one, and on not one occasion has anybody ever stood up and complained to a speaker that they were filibustering.”

Lord Falconer admitted that he was “the person who has been complaining about filibustering on the radio”.

He said: “In total, 1,253 amendments have been tabled, of which we have debated 354 so far.

“We have over 850 amendments left to be debated, which would suggest we need another 22 days in committee if we continue at this glacial pace.”

He added: “The way it is going at the moment, we will reach no conclusions whatsoever; we will appear to be an irrelevant talking shop.”

The disabled Conservative peer Lord Blencathra – former Conservative Home Office minister David Maclean – called on Lord Falconer to “condemn in no uncertain terms the articles in the last couple of days suggesting that there are seven peers who are filibustering and that a handful of peers are putting down hundreds of amendments to sabotage the bill?

“If he runs a check today… he will find that in the first six groups, 41 different peers have tabled amendments – not seven peers, not a handful of peers, but 41.

“They are doing so in order to make this very badly drafted bill better, and to try and make things safer for all concerned.”

But another disabled peer, the former Labour home secretary Lord [David] Blunkett – who said last September that he had not yet made up his mind on whether to support the bill – said it was “impossible to improve a bill if you do not get to a point where you can pass it”.

Baroness [Claire] Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, said it was “demoralising to have one’s reputation impugned and defamed with the suggestion that somehow all people are doing is playing parliamentary games, when actually we are acting in good faith”.

She said: “This is a very important bill with important issues that affect the lives of many people.

“I want to be sensitive to that, so I write down every word trying to make it count for something. I do not think that is filibustering.”

Baroness Grey-Thompson told Disability News Service (DNS) this week that it was “easy” to throw accusations of filibustering at the peers who were responsible for most of the amendments, but she had yet to see evidence that that was happening.

Many suggested changes to the bill needed multiple amendments because of the complexity of the changes required, such as the 50 amendments needed to try to reinstate a high court judge into the assisted dying assessment process, she said.

Her own attempts to improve the recording of data required 30 separate amendments to the bill.

Baroness Grey-Thompson said she needed to “push back on the claim of filibustering”, as peers were allowed to make speeches of up to 10 minutes, but the average length in the Lords so far was “just under five”.

Around 40 peers take part in the continuing debate on the bill every week as it continues its committee stage, while in total 633 peers had attended some or all of the debates, which she said showed the interest across the House of Lords.

She told DNS that it was a “poorly drafted bill with large gaps”.

The bill, and previous versions that have failed to secure parliamentary approval, have been “quite vague”, despite extensive debate over the years about the necessary safeguards, and this lack of detail meant it was crucial to make so many amendments in the Lords, she said.

And, she added, the failure to answer her questions in the Lords chamber meant she was “not prepared to withdraw amendments without any other option being in place”.