Politics
Politics Home Article | Scrutiny is not obstruction
3 min read
Supporting assisted dying in principle does not mean accepting unsafe legislation. Baroness Grey-Thompson, GB Paralympian, sets out why detailed scrutiny of the Terminally Ill (Adults) Bill is both necessary and responsible
This article was commissioned by the Total Politics Impact team for the Legislative Lookahead 2026.
The Terminally Ill (Adults) Bill is getting far more attention than any other Private Members’ Bill due to the nature of the extremely sensitive topic. There are those who have a view on the principle of assisted dying, and then the bill that is in front of us. They can be different.
I am not against the principle, and I don’t want people to suffer or to die in pain – contrary to the suggestions of many of the emails that I have received. But what is in front of us is an unsafe bill that puts disproportionate power in the hands of the Health Secretary and leaves whole topics to secondary legislation.
There is no organisation of or for disabled people or Royal Medical College that supports this bill. The various versions of the Equality Impact Assessment simply focused on costs and numbers, but little else. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Constitution Committee and Select Committee set up for this bill have all identified important issues that must be addressed. Lord Falconer’s statements to the House indicate he is aware that the bill needs further work, and we need to know how he plans to address the identified deficits.
There has been considerable criticism about the number of amendments tabled, but the raw number paints a misleading picture. To address a single issue in a bill, multiple text changes are often needed to ensure consistent wording throughout that bill. Thirty of my amendments are about accurate record-keeping and data. Another example is the 70 amendments to simply reinstate High Court judge oversight.
Two-thirds of the debate in the House of Commons took place with a judge scrutinising the process – the selling point that made it “the safest bill in the world” – although the basis of this claim hasn’t been independently verified.1 The “safest” bill in the world is not the same as being safe. The panel that currently replaces the judge is vague and has little real power.
“The ‘safest’ bill in the world is not the same as it being safe”
The number of amendments highlights that we are dealing with a bill sent from the Commons with very few concerns addressed. In their committee, over 500 amendments were tabled. Of those accepted, only 25 (18 per cent) were not from the sponsor or allies. Where concessions were made, they tended to be on training, guidance or codes (i.e. non-legally binding areas), some of which Lord Falconer now appears to be diluting with his drafting changes.
This bill has 59 clauses and is the longest seen in over 10 years. 8.5 per cent of the bill was added at report stage with little debate. 88 amendments were considered “in order” by the Speaker, and 81 of those were never called for debate. Only seven were discussed by the whole House of Commons and voted on. The fundamental role of the House of Lords is to scrutinise and improve the safety and workability of legislation. That is what we are doing.
References
