Were a ‘handful’ of Tory reactionary Lords blocking the Assisted Dying Bill?? No!

Nineteen members of the House of Lords published a letter in the Times today (Saturday November 29) objecting to the claims by Nick Boles in the Times on November 27 ( and also by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian ed.) that the opposition in the House of Lords to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill,  by “half a dozen Conservative reactionaries” conspiring to “impose their religious beliefs on others” was unconstitutional.  Jenkins noted that 600 of the 1,071 amendments came from seven peers.

The correspondents point out that it is “the constitutional duty of the Lords to scrutinise a bill, confidence in whose safeguards against abuse plummeted during its passage through the House of Commons, halving its narrow majority, with several MPs waving it through only in the hope that the upper chamber would somehow sort out its mess. Since then, the reports of three Lords select committees have confirmed doubts by exposing serious deficiencies in the legislation.”

They also note that in addition to people of faith atheists and many non-Conservative peers are also among the bill’s sceptics and critics. Further the idea is “risible” that a handful of religious believers could determine the views of several hundred peers is risible. During the Lords' second reading, 160 members from all sides of the House and of all faiths and none signed up to speak, almost two thirds of them criticising the bill.

Signatories:
Lord Biggar of Castle Douglas, Baroness Berger, Baroness Cass, Lord Grade, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Baroness Eaton, Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee, Lord Frost, Baroness Fox of Buckley, Baroness Hollins, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, Baroness Keeley, Baroness Monckton, Lord Moylan, Baroness O’Loan, Lord Rook, Baroness Stedman Scott
London SW1