Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading to support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s Bill, and I have been here throughout Committee. I am honoured to speak in the same debate as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in one of his last speeches here. As a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House—one of the newbies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—I am in awe, and will always remain so, of the great variety of expertise and experience of noble Lords. These last months have been proof of that writ large: powerful and persuasive arguments from some of the most eminent physicians, lawyers and other professionals in the country, as well as many noble Lords with a long history with the subject and a deep knowledge of this Bill. I genuinely respect the views of opponents and have followed closely noble Lords’ many amendments and speeches. Indeed, there are among your Lordships long-standing and personal friends of mine, and noble Lords have made their arguments, some at great length. That is why I imposed a self-denying ordinance on speaking myself—until now. I speak up because the other aspect of this House that has so impressed me is the way in which we conduct ourselves: self-regulating, courteous, disciplined; scrutinising and improving legislation in order to fulfil our time-honoured duty of returning Bills to the other place, to our elected representatives. I am proud of our reputation and my role, but something irregular and troubling has gone on, and we all know this. There has been an atmosphere in the House on occasion, despite my noble and learned friend’s extraordinary good temper, which is not what I had hitherto known. There have been more than 1,000 amendments, with just seven noble Lords tabling half of them. We have spent more than 100 hours—16 days—scrutinising and improving this Bill. That is on top of the 110 hours in the other place. Despite extra time for these Friday sittings and my noble and learned friend’s sincere attempts to reach agreement, here we are, on our last day, having debated less than half of the groups of amendments, never more than four a day—a snail’s pace. I welcome careful scrutiny, but I believe that what I have witnessed is procedural obstruction, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, so eloquently pointed out too. I have been baffled, dismayed and, ultimately, embarrassed that these tactics mean the Bill will fall today, before this House can even vote on the principle of assisted dying, let alone pass it back for final consideration by this country’s elected representatives, who have already supported it.