Baroness Berger (Lab)

I can reiterate only what I said in previous meetings about having specifics. I do not know which, if any, of the 1,000 amendments—some of which were tabled just the night before and we had to understand them in detail—my noble and learned friend was prepared to accept. I have looked very closely at the communications that I have received, and there have been some indications on two of the measures, but on everything else we have not received that. I have taken a number of interventions. In conclusion, I will just address one issue that has been raised. The accusation has been repeatedly made, last weekend and this morning, that religion has been driving opposition to this legislation. There are Peers of all faiths and none who have participated in your Lordships’ House and raised concerns. The objections that I and many others have to the Bill are not doctrinal; they are rooted in the real-world consequences the Bill may have for those whom we have spent years striving to represent—in my case, drawn from my direct experience as a Member of Parliament for almost 10 years—including people who do not have the same amount of agency or resources that all in this place are fortunate to enjoy. I conclude by saying that to insist that we should have glossed over this legislation that will hand the state the ability to end the lives of some of its most vulnerable citizens, ignoring the evidence that we have heard, and a Bill that no professional medical royal college in this country today says is safe, has been a misguided approach.