The House of Lords has a rare opportunity to prove its worth to the country today, as it begins to debate the assisted dying bill. Personally, I would be in favour of peers throwing out the whole idea, which is what this dangerous and badly written bill surely deserves. But it is unlikely that they will want to go so directly against the Commons, especially on such a controversial issue. So instead I must hope that they listen to disabled people’s groups, as well as legal and medical experts, and at least undo some of the lower house’s most egregious errors.

Whether you are for or against the principle of assisted dying (I am pro), we should be able to agree that the passage of this particular bill through the Commons has been haphazard, deeply unedifying and fundamentally flawed. The Lords should reject this precedent and, by adopting a better process, produce a much safer bill than the one they have been sent.

Although peers can’t do anything about the fact that the bill is a private member’s bill, which somewhat limits the scrutiny it endures, it can allocate more time to debating it. The Commons did dedicate several days to its second and third readings, but on both occasions many MPs who wanted to speak did not get the chance to do so. The new home secretary (then the justice secretary), Shabana Mahmood, was among those who said there had not been enough time for debate. Of course, MPs often don’t get to speak during a debate, but when a law fundamentally changes the nature of the state, limiting the voices that are heard cannot be a good thing. A shift this big should not be rushed. And given the failures of the Commons process, dissenting opinions should be prioritised. The Lords........

© The Guardian