My Lords, this issue has been debated for years, particularly in this House. The House is full this morning; that reflects the seriousness with which your Lordships take this issue. For the first time, we have before us a Bill on assisted dying, which has come from the other place. I know that we will do what we do so well, which is scrutinise. This is a historic occasion.
The current law is confused, causes terrible suffering, and lacks compassion and safeguards. People must be at the heart of this debate. The Government’s own estimate is that, if the law was changed to introduce assisted dying, less than 1% of deaths would be assisted after 10 years. However, it is right that we allow assisted dying as an option for those who, despite the best palliative care, still want an assisted death.
Palliative care cannot alleviate the pain of everyone. Lucy Davenport’s husband, Tom, had an agonising death from bile duct cancer, despite receiving excellent care in a hospice. He died by choking on faecal vomit:
“The look on Tom’s face of terror and horror, that’s going to be with us forever. He would be horrified to think that was our last memory of him”.
For many others, it is not about pain; it is about alleviating fear or bringing to an end the terrible and continuing loss of dignity and control, which has no end, except in death.
If the patient wants to take control of the time of their own death, they are, under the current law, legally entitled to take their own life, but they must do so without any assistance, often horribly. Many of your Lordships were with me in the Archbishops’ Room in Millbank House when the widow of a man who had a lethal brain tumour described how she found her husband’s body in their garden, having stabbed himself in the heart.
Others go to Dignitas, often alone, because those who accompany them from England fear the consequences of the criminal law. Catie Fenner’s mother, Alison, had motor neurone disease and died at Dignitas in Switzerland. Catie could not join her for fear of a police investigation. She found out about the moment her mum had died by text. Catie says:
“We didn’t see her go, we didn’t hold her hand”.
The DPP’s guidelines make it clear that anyone with medical qualifications who provides assistance will certainly be prosecuted. Where the authorities learn that somebody has provided assistance or they suspect that they have, they investigate that person, invariably with compassion. But no matter how kind the process of investigation, it is an agony for the person investigated. It can go on for months, and sometimes for over a year. They fear prosecution as they grieve for the person they love.
It is right and possible to pass a law which allows those who are terminally ill to die with dignity and at a time of their own choosing, without the fear and the horror I have described and with appropriate safeguards in law, not as currently, where people, in order to have a death at their own choosing, seek to evade the law and therefore evade the protections. Some 300 million people in the world live in jurisdictions where there is such a law. There must be safeguards. The Bill we are debating today has benefited from those other jurisdictions. It is the most safeguarded assisted dying measure in the world, particularly in the light of the safeguards inserted in the Commons.
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the comprehensive way in which he presented this Bill. In opening the debate for the Official Opposition, let me be clear that, as a Front Bench, we have no collective view on either the principle of terminally ill people receiving interventions to end their lives early or on the drafting of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House will have a free vote both on the Bill and on the Motions we are debating. The Official Opposition do not have a collective position on those Motions.
Given this fact, I will speak neither in favour of nor against the Bill. But, as the noble and learned Lord said, this is a historic occasion. It is not hyperbole to say that this Bill may be one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to be considered by this Parliament, with far-reaching implications for our society and the sort of society that we want to live in. Noble Lords will appreciate this significance simply from the sheer volume of correspondence received. Those speaking on both sides of the debate will be informed by their own experiences, whether that be professional or personal experience. We will hear many moving stories in these debates, and perhaps even shed a few tears. But, as a revising Chamber, I know that noble Lords will respect those experiences and reflect on them in good faith as we work to properly scrutinise and improve the Bill where necessary.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have received a clear signal from the elected House on the principle of the Bill. While that does not prevent noble Lords opposing the Bill per se, it is the duty of your Lordships’ House to do its work as a revising Chamber diligently. This Bill has received much scrutiny in the other place: over 100 hours across all stages, more than other Private Members’ Bills. But we should also not forget that 174 amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and further amendments were made at Third Reading, not all of which have been properly scrutinised. So the Bill your Lordships received in this House is much changed since its introduction and is in need of thorough scrutiny.
My Lords, although I am the first Liberal Democrat to speak in this debate, I am not speaking on behalf of all Liberal Democrat Peers because, as in all the other groupings in your Lordships’ House, there is a divergence of views on these issues. The divergence is not just between Members; it is often within each of us. There are dilemmas of an almost insoluble kind in some of these questions.
The two previous speakers have addressed some of the technical questions surrounding this Bill admirably. I want to speak about it in a different way. The first time I had to think about these questions was as a young doctor, when I found myself with patients who were suffering a great deal of pain and wanted to bring their lives to an end. For me, the question was, “How should I help them manage?” I can recall getting into a conversation with one elderly lady in her 90s who was suffering from a cancer in her gullet, which meant that she could not swallow anything. I said, “We have two choices here. One is that we can put a tube down so that we can keep you alive for as long as possible and relieve your pain as best as possible”. Before I went on to say anything further, she said, “Young man, I am now in my 90s. I’ve had a fair life, with its ups and downs. I do not want tubes going down. I just want you to keep me as comfortable as you can. I know that you cannot relieve all the pain; but keep me as comfortable as you can”. That is what I did, as best as I could, because, however much we wish to rid people of their pain and discomfort, it is not always possible, even with the best will in the world and the best medication available.
Sometimes, though, the situation is much more difficult than that. A close friend of mine was a very distinguished and highly respected teacher in one of our communities in Northern Ireland. He was the chairman of the Alliance Party—the party I led. He had a son who was a doctor and a wife who was suffering from an illness from which she would not recover. She was in a terrible state about it, and getting worse. She made him promise that, if it got to the point where she could not bear it any more, he would assist her to pass away. When the time came, one night, he put a pillow over her face. She passed away and he went straight out and drowned himself in a nearby lake. He could not discuss it with his son, who was a doctor, because that would have implicated his son, and as we have heard before, that would have been a difficult thing.
As an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but that this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 32nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to ensure sufficient time is available for consideration of amending stages of this bill, and to provide full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill for its remaining stages in the House of Lords.”
My Lords, this amendment would simply implement the advice given by the Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister as to how to handle this Bill, which was to treat it in the same way as other Private Members’ Bills bringing in changes to legislation on matters of conscience, such as the abortion Bill, the end of capital punishment or the decriminalisation of homosexuality. The advantage of that, of course, is that it means that government time is made available and all the resources of the Government and the Civil Service are made available for the purpose. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his assurances that he has been given some help.
I am not so sure, however, about the noble and learned Lord’s assurances on the time needed for this. As I understand it, four days have been allocated between now and Christmas to consider the Bill—the Employment Rights Bill has a total of 15 days. These are Fridays, and there are other Private Members’ Bills. It is really important that this matter be discussed properly, and that is why I have tabled this amendment. Anyone who has read the report from the committees of this House will realise that there is much to do on amending the Bill.
My father died in agony. When I went to see him, I said, “I’m so sorry that your cancer is causing you this distress”. He said to me, “Michael, you are to blame”. I was completely poleaxed by that. I asked, “How can you say that I am to blame?” He said, “Because you have consistently voted to prevent me getting what I want, which is the opportunity to decide how and when I come to die”. As a Christian, I have thought about that long and hard, and I have come to the conclusion that my father was right and I was wrong. Therefore, I support absolutely the principle of this Bill.
However, I have some problems with it. On page 7 of the excellent Explanatory Notes to the Bill, a table on what is required is set out. I suspect that people will get to the stage where they just cannot go on any longer. They will do their best to hang on, but they will get to the stage where it is just too much, as my father did. However, under the provisions of this Bill, you have to see a GP, then you have to see another GP and then a panel. There then must be a holding period of no less than three weeks before you can get to the position where you are given what you want. That is completely impractical and impossible. I know that some people will say, “We’re doing that in order to provide protection”, but whom are we protecting? Surely the patient should come before anything else.
As an amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to leave out “and to provide full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill for its remaining stages in the House of Lords”.
My Lords, I should make it clear at the outset that I am opposed to this Bill in principle but, above all, I am opposed to it because it is not an adequate Bill to deal with all the issues raised and does not provide anything like sufficient protection for those vulnerable people who might be persuaded, against their real will, to accept assisted suicide.
I agree with the words in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, apart from his bold bid that, in effect, this Private Member’s Bill should be treated as a government Bill. That was not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said was happening; I am sure that he would confirm that civil servants are insisting on their neutrality being maintained, even when they are looking at the feasibility of the Bill—I see him nodding in agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asks for
“full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill”.
That would put the noble and learned Lord in the position of a Minister. Such support is inappropriate for a Private Member’s Bill of this kind. It does not pretend for one second to be neutral or even-handed.
If the last 27 words of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were removed, I would agree with it completely, but he seeks to take the steps that I have just described. Indeed, despite the large resources supporting the purposes of this Bill and the involvement of many experts, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, one of our most respected and knowledgeable legislators, this Bill earns a D-minus for its draftsmanship, even after all those committee meetings in the other place. It needs to be dismantled if it is to be an effective and proper Bill, to give it what I would, as a shortcut, call legislative legitimacy.
What evidence is there for the propositions that I make? I will cite two pieces of evidence that emerged from your Lordships in the last two days. First, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, produced a report a couple of days ago which there is no time to read out. I will simply summarise that, by the calm standards of that committee, its criticism is excoriating. I was on that committee for a considerable period, and I never saw any Bill criticised to that extent. It says that the Bill is simply not fit for purpose, breaking several standard rules of draftsmanship. It is incompetently drafted, after all the time that has been spent on it, with the steersmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Then yesterday, the Constitution Committee reported and endorsed the views expressed by the other committee, saying, in effect, that the Bill was not fit for purpose.
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for Thames Hospice, but the views that I express today are my own. I recognise that across this House there will be very firmly held views on both sides of this argument, some coming from personal experience, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
However, I oppose this Bill and wish to set out my main reasons. First, I do not believe that the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others. I worry that, as we have seen in countries where there is such a law, people will feel that they must end their lives simply because they feel that they are a burden on others.
I worry about the impact that it will have on people with disabilities, with chronic illness and with mental health problems, because there is a risk that legalising assisted dying reinforces the dangerous notion that some lives are less worth living than others. Again, as we have seen in other countries, once a law like this is passed, the pressure grows to extend the scope of it. I also oppose the Bill because I believe that, by dispapplying the default of a coroner’s report, there is a danger that this could be used as a cover-up for mistakes made in hospital or for a hospital-acquired infection which has led to an increased likelihood of death. I have a friend who calls it the “Licence to Kill Bill”.
This is not an assisted dying Bill but an assisted suicide Bill. As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong. The Government have a national suicide prevention strategy. We bemoan the number of young people who are lured into committing suicide by social media and by what they read on the internet. This week, we had World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide is wrong, but this Bill, in effect, says that it is okay. What message does that give to our society? Suicide is not okay. Suicide is wrong. This Bill is wrong. It should not pass.
10:49 am
20 of 195 shown
Key provisions in the Bill are as follows. The criteria for requesting assistance is that the person is terminally ill, has the mental capacity to make the decision, is 18 or over, is resident in England and Wales for the last 12 months, and is registered with a GP in England or Wales. The safeguards are designed to ensure that the patient has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life and has made their decision voluntarily and without coercion. “Terminally ill” is defined as having
“an inevitably progressive … disease which cannot be reversed by treatment”,
with a reasonable expectation of death “within six months”.
The Bill is for the terminally ill only. It is about how you die when you are dying already. It is not for those with unbearable suffering, irrespective of their life expectancy, as in some countries, such as Canada. The Bill is clear that a person is not to be considered a person who is terminally ill if they are a person with only a disability or a mental disorder, or both.
Safeguards are layered throughout the process as set out in the Bill. First, a doctor in a preliminary conversation has to lay out all the care options, including the palliative care available in the context of the likely progress of the illness. Then two doctors, independent of each other, have to be satisfied that the illness is terminal within six months, that the patient has the mental capacity to make the decision, and finally, that it is their firm and settled wish arrived at without coercion. After that, a panel comprising a senior judge or King’s Counsel, a psychiatrist and a social worker has to be satisfied of the same things as the two doctors. If they are, then and only then can medical assistance be given.
I acknowledge that some think the process is too complicated and excludes too many people. On complicatedness, I am very conscious of the words of the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, who gave evidence in the other place that we should not create a “bureaucratic thicket”, and I very much hope we have avoided that. But it is vital that we should have a Bill that is robust in its safeguards in a matter of this gravity.
Disabled groups express fears that they may be vulnerable to being overpersuaded into an assisted death. I well understand the fears of the disabled in their dealing with healthcare providers, but the evidence strongly suggests that the disabled want the same rights as the rest of us when they become terminally ill. The Bill gives them excellent protection. There may be risks for them in other interactions with healthcare, but not in relation to this issue.
The multidisciplinary panel, which I have referred to, was added by amendment in Committee in the Commons, replacing the High Court judge alone. The panel provides a better safeguard than a judge alone because of the wider experience of the panel psychiatrist and social worker, but accompanied by the retention of the senior judge.
Beyond the current safeguards, some people have sought a compulsory psychiatric assessment for everybody. I do not believe that that is necessary or appropriate. The Bill provides that if either of the doctors have a doubt on capacity, they must refer the patient to a qualified psychiatrist. The panel includes a psychiatrist, and the panel can, if it wishes, require more psychiatric assessment.
No doctor or other person is required to participate in the provision of assistance under the Bill. Only those who opt in to participate in the work of the Bill need play any part. The Bill is explicit and wide in making that clear and provides extensive employment protections for those who do not wish to participate.
There are those who argue that it may be a terminal illness Bill now but its provisions will be expanded. Any such change would require primary legislation, and the experience of all other jurisdictions is that where they start with a terminal illness Bill such as this one, that is where they end. The Health and Social Care Select Committee in the Commons conducted an inquiry into assisted dying, ending in March 2024. Its conclusion on this issue was as follows:
“We … conclude that jurisdictions which have introduced”
assisted dying
“on the basis of terminal illness have not changed the law to include eligibility on the basis of ‘unbearable suffering’”.
It said that none of the jurisdictions which have introduced a terminal illness Bill has revoked it—and they have been there for as long as almost 30 years.
The Bill provides that for England:
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services”,
and that in Wales, Welsh Ministers “may” make such regulations. The difference between “must” and “may” is that we respect the devolution settlement. It is for Ministers in Wales to make their own decision in relation to that.
Concern is sometimes expressed about the cost of an assisted dying service and its effect on NHS provision. I draw your Lordships’ attention—please read the 151-page impact assessment that the Department of Health has produced—to the fact that the current budget of the National Health Service is £188 billion. On the central estimate as to what the service will cost once it is up and running, the impact assessment says it will be approximately £25 million a year. The figure does not take account of the annual savings calculated in the impact assessment, which exceed the figure of £25 million.
The NHS should have all the time it needs to introduce the service properly. It has said that it may need up to four years. The Bill has a backstop of being brought into effect after four years. We reflect what we have been told in relation to that.
The provision of assisted dying is not an alternative to palliative care. The Commons Select Committee report did not suggest that the availability of assisted dying compromised or reduced the availability of palliative care: rather, the reverse. Its conclusion was that
“we did not see any indications of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorating in quality or provision following the introduction of”
assisted dying, and
“indeed, the introduction of”
assisted dying
“has been linked with an improvement in palliative care in several jurisdictions.
The next stage is for this Bill to be scrutinised by your Lordships’ House in the normal way. I have been intimately involved with the Bill since it started its journey. This is a Private Member’s Bill, invariably and inevitably, because it is a matter of conscience. Once the Bill passed its Second Reading in the Commons, the sponsor of the Bill in the Commons, the honourable Member for Spen Valley and I, as the sponsor of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, have been provided with very substantial support from the Civil Service machine to ensure that the Bill is workable. The Government, in providing that support, did not forgo their neutrality. Rather, they provided comprehensive policy and drafting support.
I have long experience of shepherding Government Bills through Parliament. The support that I have had in relation to this Bill is second to none. The Bill passed its Third Reading in the Commons in June after more than 100 hours of debate, including 29 sittings in Bill Committee, two full days of debate on Report on the Floor of the House and a full day’s debate at both Second Reading and Third Reading.
I have to say that that compares very favourably. It is almost double the time given to scrutiny in the other place of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we are dealing with now. Altogether, the Bill Committee considered and debated over 600 amendments, accepting around a quarter of them. Over 100 amendments were made in the sponsor’s name, and more than 30 amendments that had been tabled by MPs who voted against the Bill were passed.
I very briefly turn to the Motion in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Bridges, and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Berger. The noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Bridges, refer to the Delegated Powers Committee report, which I have considered along with that from the Constitution Committee. I will be tabling amendments to deal with many of the points that both committees raise. They always help us in our deliberations.
There are some amendments which I will not be able to accept: for example, that your Lordships specify the drugs to be used in the process. Medical advances come thick and fast. This legislation is designed to last for the ages. Civil Service support is mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Bridges: I have already dealt with that. With regard to the availability of government time, which is also raised, I am confident, after conversations with the Government, that your Lordships will have more than enough time to scrutinise this Bill thoroughly—as long as, of course, we start our process of scrutiny in the ordinary course of business after we have given it a Second Reading.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lady Berger. Unfortunately, I only got notice of this last night. I did not have the opportunity after that of talking to my noble friend, and she had not discussed it with me previously. I make no criticism of her, but these are my initial thoughts in relation to it. It is proposed that a Select Committee precede the Committee of the Whole House. It has been clear for some time that at least seven days will be required to complete the passage of the Bill: four days in Committee, two days on Report and a day for Third Reading. There will then need to be ping-pong between the two Houses. If the process cannot start until January, which is what my noble friend’s amendment suggests, and must complete by the spring—the spring is when the Government say this Session will end—we will have to fit seven Fridays in between 9 January and 31 March. Having regard to recesses, the need for the normal intervals and the fact that other business will be conducted on some of those Fridays, so it cannot be every Friday, I am afraid that it is not possible to do that. I will therefore be opposing that amendment on the basis that it is not a workable timetable. That does not rule out a Select Committee running in parallel to the Committee stage, and I would be more than happy to discuss such a proposal with my noble friend, or anybody else who has such a proposal to make. But we must do our job in this House, and our job is not to frustrate, it is to scrutinise.
The Bill has been passed by the Commons. The decision on whether to change the law in our democracy should be for the elected representatives. We should improve where we can, but we should respect the primacy of the Commons. There are so many people who have been following the debate who recall the agonising death of a loved one or, like the people I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, fear what their own death might be like. The public want this and the elected House has expressed its will. I am confident that your Lordships will now do what you have done so well in the past. Whatever view we might take on the decision that the Commons arrived at, the way the debate was conducted there enhanced the reputation of Parliament. I hope and believe that we can embark on our scrutiny in a manner that will reflect just as well on our House.
The Bill before us has already given hope to those with personal experience of the injustice of the current law. They will be looking to us to play our proper role. If we can improve it further, we should and we will have done our duty. I commend this Bill to the House and I beg to move.
The arguments around this Bill are finely balanced. A noble friend of mine who, let us put it this way, is not exactly known for sitting on the fence, said to me that he attended the last time we debated this and that, after almost every speech, he found himself agreeing with the speaker. To this day, he remains torn. It just shows how finely balanced these arguments are.
Let me attempt to frame the debate and touch on some areas that noble Lords may wish to probe in Committee. In debating this Bill, we must have in mind the well-being and dignity of those for whom it was originally proposed: the terminally ill who want to end their lives early. We will hear powerful arguments based on compassion and bodily autonomy from the Bill’s supporters.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has indicated his openness to amendments to the Bill. We on these Benches welcome that openness. I expect amendments to come from supporters of this legislation who want to make it the best Bill possible. We have seen that in some of the emails noble Lords have shared with each other; we also saw it in Committee in the other place, where the Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, tabled 142 such amendments.
On the other side of the debate, there will be noble Lords who oppose the Bill on principled grounds. For some, it will be based on their faith. Others may support the principle behind the Bill but not the current drafting, either because of insufficient safeguards or because of limited access to palliative care, which denies patients a meaningful choice. They too approach this Bill with compassion. This is a matter of conscience, and as the Government Chief Whip said, we should respect the views of noble Lords who disagree profoundly with this Bill just as much as we respect the views of those in favour of it. Those who oppose the Bill will also choose to bring amendments to improve it, despite their overall view. So, whether an amendment is tabled by a supporter of the Bill, an opponent of the Bill or someone who has yet to make up their mind, those watching the debate from outside your Lordships’ House should not mistake amendments to this Bill for outright opposition.
A number of organisations, including the Law Society, the Complex Life and Death Decisions group at King’s College London, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have proposed amendments to address some serious concerns over the drafting of the Bill as it stands. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has himself acknowledged, both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have recommended amendments to the Bill, highlighting that there are now 42 regulation-making powers in this version of it—the version that came to this House. Both the Hansard Society and the Constitution Committee have pointed out that, as it is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral as to its purpose, it is unclear how these powers will be used. These are all important challenges that we must take the time to consider carefully.
There are noble Lords with strong views on both sides of this debate, but all approach it in good faith. My opening comments are not meant to persuade your Lordships to vote one way or the other or to support certain amendments over others; they are an attempt to frame the overall debate and to touch on some of the issues that may need to be probed in Committee. The decisions we take are not easy and the consequences are not always clear, but I have no doubt that the Bill will receive the scrutiny needed in this House—whether we are in favour or against—with all the emotions and concerns that will be expressed. No matter how challenging that may be, let us work together to examine the Bill in detail and do our work diligently.
The point in raising these questions is that they are not academic questions. They are real human challenges that can only be engaged with not by rules, regulations and protocols but by engaging with people in terrible dilemmas. The only way we can really understand what we are trying to do here today and next week is to put ourselves in the same position. Some of us will say, “Whatever the pain and discomfort, I simply want to be around for as long as possible”. Some may even say, “I want to be around for another month because my first great-grandchild is going to be born; but after that, it is a different story”. Others will say, “This is intolerable. It’s excruciating. It’s dreadful. I desperately, desperately wish to be relieved of it”. I rather suspect that, in those circumstances, most of us would want the help to do what we wanted to do and to be relieved of the excruciating pain, emotional or physical.
Amendment to the Motion
I am conscious of time, but one thing more that worries me is the provision in the Bill leaving the Secretary of State for Health, who is against the Bill, up to four years to delay its implementation. The noble and learned Lord, the sponsor of the Bill, said that it is giving hope to people. Well, there is not much hope with the possibility of the Bill not coming into effect until well into the next Parliament. We need time. We need every resource available in government and we need government time, so that we can get this absolutely right. There will not be a second opportunity for a very long time. Anyone who has read the letters that have come into us will know that many people are holding great hopes for this Bill. It is up to this House to amend it so that the other place can make it worthy of their hope.
We must remember that this Bill would allow a citizen deliberately to perform acts which are intended to cause the death of another citizen. Since the end of capital punishment, no such act is allowed in our law to any citizen other than in war. That is the weight of the change which this Bill seeks to make. We must be given time, the space and the methods to amend the Bill if that can possibly be done, hence my support in due course for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, which would allow a Select Committee to hear evidence which the Commons committee chose not to hear and would have been very persuasive. I beg to move.