Lord Sandhurst (Con)

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 82 and 83A in particular, which were advanced by my noble friend Lord Polak, who could not be here after 4 pm today, and I said that I would speak in support of them. I endorse entirely what my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord Frost have said—theirs were admirable speeches and every word was right. Amendment 82—I can take this shortly, as I am conscious of the time—addresses the phrase “reasonably be expected” in defining who is terminally ill. It asks for those words to be removed and seeks to insert in their place, “be highly probable and require dual specialist certification by independent consultants”. In other words, it is to do with the vagueness which would otherwise occur, and which would be subjective and dangerously elastic as life goes forward five and 10 years down the road and this Bill is applied—I am assuming that the Bill will come into force. The threshold is too low and the condition is too uncertain. Inserting these words would require two independent specialists—consultants with expertise in the relevant field. When looking at vagueness and uncertainty and the risk of people who are not really experts in the field giving this sort of advice to an individual, I was particularly moved by the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. We have heard others, as well, from those who have had similar experiences, not least my noble friend Lord Polak, who cannot be here and who would have been speaking to this amendment. I know it is that which has motivated him to bring this amendment. Amendment 82 would introduce a higher test. It would be a safeguard that is both practical and ethical. It is about introducing something which is much closer to certainty or confidence, not just vague possibilities. Amendment 83A does not touch on the six-month timeframe. It would ensure that eligibility for assisted dying rests on rigorous and established clinical standards, not on a broad prognostic guess; it would be determined by clinical judgment, in accordance with peer-reviewed palliative care standards. It may be that someone can come up with a better way of putting it, but it is a shot at saying something that doctors in this position will understand. I remind the Committee that my noble friend Lord Polak is living proof that such predictions can be very wrong. Amendment 83A would be a step towards a proper principle. It would retain the six-month timeframe but would insist that the judgment was grounded in peer-reviewed palliative care standards, not vague estimates. These small amendments would strengthen the Bill and safeguard our humanity, if we decide to go down the route of adopting it.