Lord Blencathra (Con)

My Lords, I will speak relatively briefly to the amendments in this group. I degrouped them for a technical reason. They are quite narrowly drawn. I know there is a group coming up, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, that is wider ranging and more important than mine. If any noble Lord wishes to speak on the principle of these amendments, they might be better off waiting for the noble Baroness’s group. The purpose of my Amendment 39B is to ensure that a person who wishes to die is driven by their illness, not by poverty, loneliness, lack of care or other remedial pressures. This would restore the link between the justification for the Bill and its operation. The political case for assisted dying has always been framed around unbearable physical suffering caused by terminal illness, yet the Bill contains no requirement that the person’s motivation must arise from that illness. Without this amendment, the Bill becomes a general choice in adversity scheme, where any reason—financial distress, lack of care, fear of being a burden—can drive the decision. The noble and learned Lord has now explicitly said: “I am strongly against saying poor people should not have that choice”.—[Official Report, 16/1/26; col. 2020.] That is an admission that the Bill permits assisted death for reasons of poverty. My amendment would correct that. It would ensure that the motivation must be principally attributable to the illness itself, not to the state’s failure to provide care, housing or support. This is not about denying autonomy; it is about ensuring that autonomy is real. A decision driven by poverty or abandonment is not a free choice. The amendment would ensure that the Bill remains what the public believe it to be: a response to suffering caused by terminal illness, not a response to social failure. My Amendment 39C would draw a clear line: financial distress, lack of housing or lack of social support cannot be the primary motivations for an assisted death. Without this safeguard, the Bill risks becoming a mechanism by which poor and unsupported people are offered death instead of help. The Bill is presented to the public as a response to the unbearable physical suffering caused by terminal illness, yet it contains no requirement that the person’s motivation must arise from that illness. Without these amendments, the Bill permits assisted death for a whole host of reasons that Parliament never intended, such as loneliness, poverty, lack of housing, lack of care or feeling like a burden on the state or your dependants. The noble and learned Lord has now accepted that these motivations are valid choices. That is a dramatic shift from his own 2012 commission, which said that motivations were never legitimate and that safeguards must prevent them. Peers are entitled to ask what has changed other than the political need to keep the Bill workable. International evidence shows that non-medical motivations dominate assisted dying requests. Pain is not the primary driver. We hear that being a burden is a driver, as is the loss of autonomy. Parliament must decide whether it is comfortable legislating for that. Finally, these amendments ensure that asking “why” has consequences. If the answer is poverty, loneliness or lack of care, the response should be support, not a lethal prescription. These amendments restore coherence, safeguard autonomy and prevent the Bill from becoming a general choice in adversity scheme. I beg to move.