Thread by @nmdacosta

1. Charlie Falconer - Lords sponsor of the Bill.
2. Kamall, Con, Shadow Minister for Health
3. Alderdice, Lib Dem, advocate for AS/AD
4. Forsyth, Con, pro AS/AD says bill 'not fit for purpose', tabled motion calling for more time / more govt support
5. Carlile, Crossbench, sat on 2004-05 Cttee on AS/AD
6. Theresa May, Con, former Prime Minister
7. Bishop of London, 'grave fears' over Bill
8. Margaret Hodge, Lab, former Minister pro Bill

Watch here: - BBC should provide names of speakers. Very busy House. 95 speakers to get through today. bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/b…

House is informed of the sad death of Lord Howarth of Newport. Govt Chief Whip, Lord Kennedy says backbench peers given an advisory time limit of 4 mins, should allow finish at 5pm today and next Friday. Falconer, Minister and the Con and Lib Dem frontbench speakers get longer.

Lord Falconer, sponsor, says debated for years, first time a bill from the Commons. Says less than 1% of deaths after 10 years would be this route. Gives examples of who would benefit. Says CPS investigations are an agony. Says safe law is possible. Talks through criteria and process. Safeguards ensure* have capacity and it's their own decision [requirement is only 51% sure - balance of probabilities]. Only then can medical assistance given.

Lord Falconer deals with critiques: too complicated - quotes Whitty and avoiding 'bureaucratic thicket' but needs to be safe; doesn't cover enough people; says bill gives the disabled 'excellent protection'

Falconer says panel is better than judge alone because of experience while 'retaining senior judge'. [NB senior judge may only be the Commissioner and ONLY gets involved if application refused and there is appeal, otherwise largely administrative]

Falconer says no slippery slope, quotes Health Committee as evidence. Says none have revoked the legislation and says laws have been in place for 30 years [that's really only Oregon to my knowledge, believe Cttee also noted that many laws are new and early days]

Falconer encourages everyone to read the Impact Asssessment, says £25m cost a year, and doesn't take account of the savings which exceed that amount. [For every four months of healthcare not used there's a saving of over £13k - here's my infographic]

Falconer says he's had "very extensive support" from civil servants, says he's very experienced shepherding legislation, gives some stats from the Commons, and over 100 amendments passed [NB many of these were correcting amendments].

Falconer acknowledges DPRRC report says will table some amendments but won't accept all - won't specify the drugs says bill needs to stand test of time [it's possible to specify on face of the bill, with power to amend]. Says there should be enough time.

Falconer opposes select committee to hear evidence and gives his estimate of what the Bill needs. He only wants 7 days - 4 for committee, 2 for report, and a day for third reading, and then ping pong. [That's far far less than the Commons took]. Says would look at 'in paralllel'

Lord Kamall for Conservative frontbench. Emphasises neutrality, mirror govt. Bill may be one of most significant pieces of legislation to be considered by parliament. Acknowledges Commons vote, duty to be diligent, notes time spent but also number of amendments not scrutinised.

Says on all sides have compassion. Respect all sides. Notes Leadbeater tabled 142 amendments, and on whatever side someone is, do not mistake tabling of amendments as outright opposition. Notes amendments proposed by Royal Colleges and concerns, and those of Lords Committees.

Lord Kamall notes array of powers, Constitution Committee, Delegated Powers Committee and @HansardSociety concerns as to how they will be used. All this likely to feature at Committee stage. Asks Peers to work together to examine the bill in detail and do work diligently

Lord Alderdice, speaking as first Lib Dem, but says not speaking on behalf of Lib Dems. Divergence in party, and 'within each of us', exemplifies - patient that wanted to be kept comfortable in final days; a husband who put pillow over wife's face to end her life, and then drowned himself, but could not tell his son; those that will want relief.

@HansardSociety Lord Forsyth says he doesn't think enough time has been allocated. Only four days before Christmas. Anyone that's read the reports from the Lords Committees says there is much to do.

@HansardSociety Lord Forsyth speaks of father's suffering from cancer and how father blamed him for opposing law change, and how changed his mind. Supports principle. Says system in Bill is impractical and impossible for those that want relief. Opposes SoS having 4 years. Wants govt time.

@HansardSociety Lord Carlile opposed to the Bill in principle and the Bill - not adequate to deal with issues raised and protect the vulnerable who might agree to assisted suicide against real will.

@HansardSociety Lord Carlile opposes Lord Forysth's motion and this being treated as a govt bill. Lord Forsyth asks for full govt support for Falconer - would make him a minister. Inappropriate for a PMB, not be neutral or even handed.

@HansardSociety Lord Carlile says the Bill earns a D minus for its draftmanship. Needs to be dismantled if effective. Says he's never seen a bill criticised as strongly as it has been by the Delegated Powers Committee. Notes similar conclusions by Constitution committee.

@HansardSociety Lord Carlile reminds House this Bill allows a citizen to end the life of another citizen. Not allowed since death penalty abolished other than in war. Need the time and space to amend. Supports select committee to hear evidence the Commons chose not to hear.

Baroness (Theresa) May, declares amabassador for Thames Hospice, but they are own views. Does not believe that safeguards will prevent people being pressured to end their lives for benefit of others. Impact on those that feel they are a burden. Impact on those with disabilities and chronic problems - endorses view some lives are less worth living, and growth in legislation

@HansardSociety Baroness May: not an assisted dying bill, it is an assisted suicide bill. We believe it is wrong as a society. We have a national suicide prevention strategy. Suicide is wrong, this bill says it is ok. What message does that give to society? Bill is wrong and it should not pass.

@HansardSociety Bp of London: change law is to change society; to change for a few the effect is not limited to those few - it says some lives not worth living, becomes our state endorsed position, and NHS active in its delivery. No amdts that can safeguard from its negative effects.

@HansardSociety Bp of London: concerned at inadequate palliative care; concerned by how it interacts with inequality, discrimination and abuse; concerned that views of professional bodies are being ignored; concerned that without true choice, this choice is an illusion, must amend.

Bp of London: Bill is driven by fear of pain, illness, dependency, of loss of control, of being unrecognisable to self and others, but life is not something that can be managed or limited when it is difficult. Believe in a God whose very being is life. Never indifferent to human fragility but holds it and tends it. Belief that there is always hope. Proper support and compassion, dignity is possible. Resists this Bill.

@HansardSociety Baroness Hodge: supports the Bill. Do we give people right to choose how they die. Wants it for self and for others. Says 650 terminally ill individuals take lives each year, and for 1000s that attempt suicide, and for those that go to Dignitas. Who are we to deny others choice

@HansardSociety Baroness Grey-Thompson: good laws are not made from hard cases, and soundbites don't make watertight bills. Heard it's safest in world but judge replaced with panel with "judge plus". Cites at length concerns of professional bodies. Gives examples of gaps in different clauses.

@HansardSociety Baroness Grey-Thompson: concerned that we see gaps in reporting in Oregon, but the Bill doesn't tackle this; bill doesn't require a minimum standard for the drugs and poor deaths through these drugs; need to record adverse consequences - nothing to fear from reporting.

@HansardSociety Baroness Grey-Thompson: this parliament cannot bind another, slippery slope has happened elsewhere including from changes in behaviours and interpretation, not just legal expansion.

@HansardSociety Baroness Fetherstone: wants to speak of her right to choose, autonomy, decision about own body and life. If people can choose to refuse treatment and have advance directives, should be able to choose when and how die. Doesn't force anyone to end their life, respects choice.

@HansardSociety Baroness Fetherstone: says giving this choice is same as other choices we respect: freedom of religion; sexual orientation; marriage or not. Feels there is inequality if cannot afford to go abroad to allow it locally and reduces traumatic situations for families and workers.

@HansardSociety Baroness Fetherstone: says if voting against for religious reasons, that it's not compulsory, and if religious convictions stop you taking advantage, don't stop those of us who want to choose.

@HansardSociety Lord Stevens, former Chief Exec of NHS: absence of meaningful choice if there is not adequate palliative care. Outlines the situation. Rebuts the claim AD laws lead to improvements to palliative care - says it has been due to matched efforts by govt, not aware of such an offer

Lord Stevens: Lord Falconer said the AD service will be remarkably cheap at £25m. The cost of palliative care is far more costly and therefore far more risky that will be lack of choice. Bill requires two reports on state of palliative care - they won't be worth paper writtten on, SoS marking own homework, no consequence.

@HansardSociety Lord Stevens: Bill requires two reports on state of palliative care - they won't be worth paper writtten on, SoS marking own homework, no consequence. Proposes amendments that could ensure genuine choice. Take seriously warning of Hospice UK the risks.

@HansardSociety Baroness Primarolo: speaks of how painful the situations people must deal with and fundamental right of choice and to deny ultimate right to end one's life when alternative is scary and appalling. Need to facilitate the bill. Says bill is not reckless.

@HansardSociety Baroness Primarolo: Wrong for state to intervene with and impose values above right of self-determination where no perverse impact on community. Says "greater good is not servced by sacrificing the few". Will resist any attempts to delay its passage through the House.

@HansardSociety Lord Lamont: acknowledge argument of principle of choice. Also the principle of the value of life. Take into account the consequences and unintended consequence. Consider doctor-patient relationship and how this sits in NHS.

Lord Lamont: concerned by what medical practitioners and medical colleges have said. Why do we not ask why someone wishes to end their life. Would it not be better for pain and suffering to be written in as exclusive reason. How regulate the drugs? Judge capacity? In Beligum and New Zealand there's a prohibition on raising assisted dying, should there not be in this Bill?

@HansardSociety Lord Lamont: SofS has said no additional funding for this, and palliative care only gets 30% funding. Where end up? Situation with delegated powers is unsatisfactory. Many amendments needed at committee, the bill is not satisfactory.

Bp of Southwark: cautions at "remedy of choice", concerned vulnerable will become more vulnerable. Speaks of the value of life and intrinsic value at all stages, and AD "dangerously introduces concept of limited worth of human life into medical practice and relationships". Must address chronic underfunding of palliative care. Cannot support the bill.

@HansardSociety Baroness Falkner, Chair of EHRC, speaking in personal capacity. Found to have advanced stage 3 ovarian cancer, after 7 months of experience of disregarding doctors went private and had operations and chemo. Relevant because in other jurisdictions cancer sufferers sig cohort.

@HansardSociety Baroness Falkner: would have expected the govt to have taken over the bill; would support select committee; concerned by the disregard for those with concerns, including disabled people. Previously supported AD and wishes "didn't have to deal with it through this flawed bill"

@HansardSociety Baroness Hunter: gives examples of those that benefitted from going abroad and the trouble of having to do so, and absence of opportunity for others, and need for "equity of choice".

Baroness Goldie: oppose principle, but task is to scrutinise this Bill. Must consider how we deal with suffering and chronic underfunding of palliative care; concerned by elements of prognostic uncertainty; how ascertain their desire and absence of coercion and pressure- may never have met before - how would tell.

@HansardSociety Baroness Goldie: repeated reliance on delegated pwoers makes this bill opaque and impossible to understand and on an issue of life and death that is unacceptable. Bill not fit for purpose.

Baroness Murphy: has supported every bill on this. Says "no risk for the vulnerable", asserts no evidence of undue influence impacting decision, and palliative care has in many places improved. Says calling in psychiatrists unnecessary. Too much bureaucracy and oversight in bill. Elligibility too narrow.

@HansardSociety Baroness Murphy: sympathetic to Lord Forsyth amendment but thinks will create problems. Let's get the bill through. Respect will of Commons.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: wrestled with position, last days of his mother made him conclude preciousness of life. Enough international evidence to suggest that laws expand inc to cover psychiatric illness, and even minors. Notes Canada. Impact on doctor-patient relationship. Concerned about palliative care.

@HansardSociety Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: notes DPRRC report, concerned that Lord Falconer has already ruled out moving on recommendations on drugs and hopes will reconsider; believes 4 days in committee wholly inadequate and would support select committee.

@HansardSociety Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: regrets he cannot support Lord Falconer. Find ways to alleviate suffering in keeping with preserving life. In world of rights and autonomy, only natural would seek to extend - but is it truly a sign of freedom when open a door to practice that ends life

@HansardSociety Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: must ask if we've done enought to support people in such circumstances. Essence of this bill that AD should be available as an option is a major shift in society. Notes expansion in Canada - now 1 in 20 deaths by euthanasia. Truly offering compassion?

@HansardSociety Duke of Wellington: too many dying in pain or loss of dignity. Tying to prevent a current or future wrong without creating an unintended future wrong e.g. vulnerable might be pressured but more than sufficient safeguards. Supports bill but too complex, could put people off.

@HansardSociety Lord Dobbs: supports bill says those of religous belief have no right to impose; are we to believe so cruel that we've turned into society of casual killers; dismisses concerns as supposition v reality of torments of what people enduring.