Lord Moylan (Con)

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 926 and 929, which are related to each other. They are probing amendments related to Schedule 2 and the operation of the panel. It is something that has been niggling away at me and worrying me. I am perfectly prepared, of course, to be told by the noble and learned Lord that there is nothing for me to worry my little head about but let me raise the question none the less. Schedule 2 makes provision for appointments to the assisted dying review panel. As I understand it— I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—the commissioner can create a list of people who are eligible to serve on panels. That is, if one likes, the mega panel at the top. These people can be appointed for a term of five years and reappointed for a term of a further five years. From that large group of people, the commissioner then, in each individual case, will draw and appoint the members of a panel—the three members with the specific skills that we have been discussing—and the decision of those panels needs to be unanimous. Even an abstention would count as a negative vote, so to speak. That is how I understand paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. That is the background. To work properly, the panel members need to be independent of each other and reach their own view. It seems quite possible that they will have different personal thresholds as to what they regard as the appropriate level of evidence required to persuade them to say yes. In that light, it is more than possible that some of them might turn out to be slightly awkward, in the sense that they tend to say no rather more often than they say yes—which is fatal to the process because one no and the whole thing is over. You have been through the preliminary discussion and the two doctors, and at the panel you are being knocked back because of one rather awkward person. There will be pressure on the system as a whole, essentially, to eliminate those people from it—those who are difficult and who generally are more likely to say no than otherwise. Amendment 926 says that, when deciding whether or not to reappoint somebody for a further five-year term, no account should be taken of what might be called for this purpose their voting record in panels. Similarly, Amendment 929 would mean the decision of whom to appoint to a panel cannot be taken on the basis of their past voting record. Voting record may be an inappropriate phrase, but I think noble Lords understand exactly what I mean. As has been mentioned earlier in the course of the day, the background to this is of course the Abortion Act. The principal safeguard in the Abortion Act is that two doctors separately must agree there is a threat to the woman’s health. When the Act was introduced, that was quite possibly a genuine safeguard, and there may have been occasions when doctors said they did not consider there was a threat to the woman’s health that justified an abortion, but it has become entirely routine. There would probably be a flag run up a pole at DHSC headquarters if a doctor were to say no on an abortion application nowadays. Therefore, I have put these amendments down to prevent something like that from happening—to prevent the panels from becoming routine—and to ensure those people who have the higher threshold of evidence, the more cautious approach, the slightly more sceptical attitude, are not eliminated from the panels, either through having their term not extended or through simply not being appointed when each opportunity comes up. There may be better ways of dealing with the concern I have expressed than the ways contained in my specific amendments. They are, as I say, probing, and I am open to those improvements. But we have to ensure that this does not go the way of the Abortion Act, and that the panels are robust and say no when it is appropriate to say no, which might be quite often. That is what I would like to hear the noble and learned Lord comment on when the time comes.