Lord Green of Deddington (CB)

My Lords, this has been a most impressive debate, with the House operating at its best. However, we now face a challenge because, frankly, the Bill as drafted is a bit of a shambles. An enormous amount of work needs to be done, both on the detail that has been raised and on its central issues. It also contains the risk that some people will feel that they must end their life because they fear that they have become a burden on others. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, described the Bill as “a very complex and serious issue that will ultimately change the relationship between the citizen and the state, and indeed between patients and their doctors”. That point has also been made today. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, also pointed out that “passing a Bill that makes provision for the state to pay for an assisted dying service … while not fully funding the provision of palliative care”—[Official Report, 12/9/25; col. 1809.] would have wider implications, which was rather tactfully put, if I may say so. Indeed, it may be partly for this reason that a clear majority of palliative care doctors are opposed to the Bill in its present form. One cause of concern, which I share, is the disappearance of the High Court judges from the oversight system, for reasons that are entirely understandable. As a result, those panels are likely to be staffed mainly by those who favour the new arrangements—and we have seen in Canada how rapidly the number of assisted deaths could grow. In seven years, they have increased from 1,000 a year to 15,000 a year. A further major difficulty in the present Bill is that, while doctors can decline to be involved in the new system, hospices and care homes cannot, as bodies, opt out. Indeed, some care homes might well feel obliged to close. That will be a very serious blow to a lot of people. The Bill even includes a requirement for medical professionals to “signpost” patients towards information about how to access an assisted suicide if they so wish. That is an extraordinary requirement, not so different from the ordinary suicide websites that we rightly seek to prohibit. The Bill would also permit doctor shopping, where a patient refused by one doctor could simply find another who was willing to sign the documents, and there could indeed be money to be made by some people in those circumstances. It is even the case that such suicides would be explicitly excluded from a coroner's investigation—yet another point that needs to be looked at very carefully as this goes forward. I trust that this House will now address itself to the many amendments that are needed. They were brilliantly summarised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, while the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, spoke powerfully on some wider issues. That leaves me in two minds, and I will see where we get to before I decide to vote.