---

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I am one of the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee. We came to the Bill from different perspectives. As noble Lords know, I am not in favour of the principle of assisted dying. However, my view has always been that

the role of your Lordships’ House is clear: it is to scrutinise and amend legislation. I have at no point sought to delay the legislation, because it is crucial that we send a message to the other House.

If my views had prevailed, my preference would have been to say that we do not want this legislation at all, but that does not appear to be the will of your Lordships’ House, and the view of the country seems to be a general preference for legislation on assisted dying. As I said at Second Reading, we as legislators are not legislating for ourselves or our own preferences; we must be legislating for the most vulnerable in society.

11.45 am

I am in a different position from many noble Lords because the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, actually agreed with one of my proposals, on 16 January. He tabled three amendments—Amendments 330A, 357A and 387A—on requiring a doctor to ask somebody why they want an assisted death. If this legislation stops today, I would very much like to ask the noble and learned Lord—as well as anyone in the other place who might be minded to sponsor a similar Bill in the next Session—to do as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said and find a way of bringing forward legislation that includes some of the safeguards that the noble and learned Lord has indicated he would support.