Why it is important that we get to grips with the details of the Assisted Dying Bill in the Lords - David Blunkett

Whereas in the House of Commons, amendments are often laid at this stage, by convention this doesn’t happen in the Lords where by precedent we allow bills to go straight through to the detailed scrutiny that is known as the ‘Committee Stage’.

But so many peers wished to speak on this subject that the second reading has been broken into two full days so the house will resume the debate next Friday.

Amendments during the Committee stage will be moved and debated, but not voted upon.

It's part of the quirky and sometimes extremely prolonged ways in which the House of Lords scrutinises legislation.

The benefit is that there is genuinely detailed appraisal which gives those with expertise a chance to question or make suggestions of improvement on the detail, and for the Government to consider what might be acceptable to them.

By the time the legislation reaches its ‘Report Stage’, unless (as recently) there is a filibuster to simply keep the debate going and dislocate the business of government, amendments will be refined down to an essential few which will then be voted on.

Quite often, amendments are brought forward by the Government itself. There was one bizarre session in the last Parliament, when over 2,000 amendments were moved by the government on its own proposals.

It does make the work of the House of Lords worthwhile, but it also raises real questions about getting legislation right in the first place, and perhaps giving more scrutiny which will provide ‘pre-legislative’ analysis and outside commentary before a Bill is presented to the House of Commons.

But back to the emotionally charged and extremely difficult question of how to vote on this particular Bill. On this legislation there will be an entirely free vote.

The Government will not intervene as it is both a Private Members Bill and, crucially, an Issue of Conscience.

In the months ahead – because it is likely to take months – the legislation as delivered from the House of Commons will be taken apart, clause by clause, on the floor of the House of Lords. In my case, sitting through as much of the debate as I possibly can will be important.

Not least because, uncharacteristically for me, I haven't yet made up my mind.

Please don't take this as an invitation to inundate me with emails. We do not get staffing provided in the House of Lords, so I'm only able, with the resources at my disposal, to employ just one excellent member of staff, and they would simply go under if the existing avalanche of emails on this subject were to turn into a flood.

The point I'm seeking to make is that these delicate judgements need to be thought through extraordinarily carefully if, in the end, we are to produce a piece of legislation which stands the test of time. In fact, I'm interested in having a ‘break clause’, where the implementation of the legislation would be scrutinised again down the line, bringing back, to both Houses of Parliament, an assessment of whether what we thought we were doing has actually turned out as expected in practice.

There are lessons to be learned from what has taken place across the world on this matter. In some countries, the provision started out much more expansively than in others.

In Canada, for instance, what was originally seen as a fairly tight criteria for exercising the ‘right’ to the necessary steps, was extended, in part, by judicial challenge.

Many, many more people have taken their own life in this way than was ever expected.

In some jurisdictions, deep and prolonged depression arising from severe mental health challenges fall within the jurisdiction of the legislation.

This is not – it has to be clear – part of the present proposition we are debating and I'm very relieved.

Two very close relatives have, in my lifetime, taken their own life because of severe depression, but I would not have wished the law to have sanctioned this.

Not least because any definition of what would be permissible is almost impossible to craft; and because there are good and bad periods and stages, and, unlike terminal illness, there is always hope.

We will be going into great detail as to what and how we would define “terminal", which also raises the issue of the kind of terrible distress which comes with some forms of degenerative illness and some types of cancer. There is nothing new here.

In the past, there is no doubt assistance was given to those in great distress, but formalising it into law is what makes the task ahead so very difficult.

My hope is that rational dialogue, together with a willingness to listen and learn will take us through not to a place where we all agree, but at least to solutions which gain the respect of those with very different views; and, if approval is given, the kind of safeguards which will genuinely give reassurance to those with grave doubts about the wisdom of moving in this direction.

David Blunkett is a Labour Party politician, and served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough.