(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That, in order to allow the House to complete its scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and return it to the Commons in reasonable time before the end of the current parliamentary session, further time should be provided for consideration of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very aware that this is the last business we will consider today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. The assisted dying Bill commands strong views, both in favour and against, and is of huge public interest in terms of not only its content but its progress through our Parliament—and not least how we in this House conduct our scrutiny of it. Over 1,000 amendments in Committee have been tabled, arranged into approximately 84 groups. So far, we have spent in total some 32 hours in this House scrutinising the Bill, and we have another 50 hours scheduled. However, in four days of Committee—about 17 hours—we have considered only 10 groups. If we continue at the rate we are going, this House will fail to complete the process of scrutiny. We will reach no conclusions on the Bill as to how it should be amended or whether it should return to the Commons. Instead, the Bill will fail through lack of time—this despite the fact that it came to this House in June of last year after extensive scrutiny in the Commons and received in this House an unopposed Second Reading after a two-day debate with 110 speakers.
Many Members of the House, from the newest to the most experienced and on both sides of the substantive issue of assisted dying, have expressed the view to me that it would be wrong, and would significantly damage the reputation of this House, if we failed to reach conclusions on the Bill. I strongly agree with that. We should not allow our justified reputation for high-quality scrutiny to be tarnished by failing to reach conclusions on this Bill.
The purpose of my Motion today is to give the House the opportunity to express a view on whether your Lordships want this House to complete its scrutiny and, if the Bill passes Third Reading in this House, to send it back to the Commons in time for it to complete all its stages before the end of this parliamentary Session. To achieve this, I believe that we have to undertake our scrutiny role in the normal way that we do. We need to work co-operatively so that we can focus the time we have on the key issues, in order to reach agreement wherever possible on amendments to the Bill, and then decide whether to send the Bill back to the Commons.
This House works best when we work together, exercise self-restraint and undertake scrutiny that reaches conclusions on legislation. For self-regulation to retain respect—and I most certainly believe it should continue—this House has to be effective in reaching conclusions.
The Government are neutral on this Bill and will, I know, remain so. As sponsor of the Bill, I am grateful for the time that has been made available so far for consideration of it. But, as I have said, if we continue at this pace, we will fail in our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill.
If the Motion passes, I would hope that all sides can be brought together through the usual channels to achieve a reasonable, informal but effective process to complete the passage of the Bill through this House—taking into account, of course, the needs of the House staff. This remains a Private Member’s Bill, and extra time should not involve any time that would otherwise be for government business.
The approach to scrutiny I am suggesting, which is normal in our House, is the way we can fulfil our role as a revising Chamber and reach conclusions. This does not lead to chaos. The House would have to agree to an amendment like this in each case. The key thing is the approach we take to scrutiny. More time may be required, but the mutual agreement we reach on how we do things is key to the solution.
Before I close, I emphasise that the form of the Motion has been drafted to ensure that it does not preclude the possibility of a negative vote at Third Reading. My personal view is that, for constitutional reasons, this would be the wrong thing for this House to do, but it is not excluded by the Motion. My aim with the Motion is to get to Third Reading, so that we can reach a decision on the Bill and, if it passes that stage, ensure that it has time to complete its later stages in Parliament. The Government Chief Whip has made it clear to me—I completely agree with this—that if the Motion passes, the normal sitting hours for tomorrow will not be affected in any way.
Whatever colleagues’ views are on the Bill, I invite all noble Lords to support the Motion and thereby express the view of this House that it wishes to complete its scrutiny of the Bill, reach conclusions and thereby fulfil its responsibilities as a revising Chamber. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, after the Leader of the House has spoken, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is taking part remotely.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, before other noble Lords contribute, I thought it would assist the House if I said a few words about the procedure and timings for this debate and the Government’s position.
Turning first to procedure, I remind colleagues that this debate should be focused on the narrow subject of the Motion—that is, the time available to debate the Bill. The purpose of the Motion before us is to allow the House to express a view on the time needed. It is not an opportunity to reopen and continue debate on the substance of the Bill and what it does and does not do. So far, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have had two days of Second Reading and many hours of Committee, and there are a further 10 Fridays scheduled for debate. I would also urge noble Lords not to repeat arguments and to keep comments brief so that this debate can conclude in good time.
Secondly, on timings, colleagues will be mindful that the House is due to sit again at 10 am tomorrow morning further to consider amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords will need to come to a decision this evening on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In light of tomorrow’s sitting time, I hope that the House will not sit too late. If necessary, the Chief Whip or I may return to the Dispatch Box to advise colleagues if it looks as if proceedings are not coming to a timely conclusion.
On the Government’s position on the Bill, as we have said before, the Government are neutral on this issue. This is not a Government Bill but a Private Member’s Bill. Noble Lords are considering whether, in light of the additional Fridays already provided, additional time beyond the usual sitting Friday times should be made available. I know that the House is interested in how the Government will respond to this question if the Motion is passed. I hope that noble Lords will also understand that I am not going to give any commitments at this stage. We will listen to the debate and, if the Motion is agreed, to the views of the House.
If the Motion is agreed, we will have early discussions with colleagues in the usual channels, the House authorities and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the next steps. In considering those next steps, I am clear that the Bill should not take away time available for government legislation. I am sure that we are all very mindful of the impact on the staff of the House and the Members involved in discussions and debates on the Bill. I hope that this is helpful, prior to the consideration of this specific debate on the timings of the discussions to take place.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot be present in person today because of the snow and the increased risk of fracture should I slip. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak remotely and briefly on the Motion before us. The Motion implies that, despite our already having been generous with our time to an unprecedented degree, as the allocation of so many Fridays between now and 24 April demonstrates, it would somehow be unreasonable not to allocate yet more time.
I suggest that the Motion overlooks the reason why we have had to spend so much time to date considering amendments, for surely, as with any Bill, we can only ever work with what we have been given—in this case, by the other place. The volume of amendments and the time taken to consider them therefore reflect the quality, or lack thereof, of the Bill that was sent to us.
I wonder if we really appreciate the deep gratitude of those who, unlike us, are not privileged, perhaps because they feel vulnerable because of disability or old age, and do not have a voice, so depend on us to consider their concerns. It is surely to our credit that that is exactly what we are doing. We should surely be heartened by how much it is appreciated that we take our duty to scrutinise so seriously. We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament’s revising Chamber.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a wonderfully wise Scottish saying from the 16th century, which I believe this Bill shows has stood the test of time: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Our procedures are being followed appropriately and reasonably. If any Bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, but whether yet more time could transform it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I speak very briefly in favour of the Motion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, this is not about support or opposition to the Bill. It is about how your Lordships’ House deals with a controversial piece of legislation, passed by the other House, which has come to us as a Private Member’s Bill. It is not an easy question, and it is a slightly unusual position. One can adduce very sensible arguments in favour of whatever position one wants to take; we all have our own views.
Many people have been in this House far longer than I have, but this issue is not just for this House; it is for Parliament and for the other House. I come to this after 40 years in the other place, where I had responsibilities, among others, for managing parliamentary business and relationships with your Lordships’ House. I mind, as others do, about the reputation of Parliament at a time when we are under increased scrutiny.
In a nutshell, my view is that the House should carry on with its traditional role of scrutinising and, if necessary, amending legislation, but crucially, the final decision as to whether this controversial piece of legislation reaches the statute book should be taken by the other place and not by us. At the end of the day, they are accountable to the electorate for the progress of this Bill. That is what the Motion seeks to do and that is why I support it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for writing an email to everyone in the House, but I did so because the Motion is extremely important and I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. This is probably one of the most important Bills to come before this House in recent years, as all noble Lords will know. It is unfortunate that it is a Private Member’s Bill, because that presents additional problems. I do not like the Bill, but we have it and we have to deal with it.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.
There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.
It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for namechecking me earlier, particularly in the same sentence as my noble friend Lord Pannick. I have the unenviable task tomorrow morning of moving the first amendment and the first group at 10 o’clock and, before I come here, I shall certainly have to reflect on the length of the speech that I intend to make. In fact, I have already prepared a speech that will probably not last more than 12 to 15 minutes, which seems to me be entirely proportionate to the huge group that we will be considering tomorrow.
I came here thinking that I would oppose the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, if it was put to the test. However, in fact I have been particularly influenced by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who brings great wisdom to this House and, above all, an example of common sense which is heard often among the senior judiciary, in my view—I had to say that, did I not?
I have one stricture, if it is right to describe it as that, to put to the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I have discussed issues relating to the length of the debates on this Bill. I still believe that we can complete all stages of this Bill in the time that has already been allotted. I believe that if Members of this House were sparing in not making further Second Reading-type speeches, we would achieve that task. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord that we do need a little bit more discussion from his side. I have encouraged him, and there have been meetings to this effect, to look at the main issues on this Bill—I know there are a thousand amendments, but there are about 10 main issues at most—and come and tell us where he is prepared to make concessions, and how we can constructively discuss such concessions. On a Bill like this, if we do not go through that process, actually, the Committee stage becomes futile.
I hope that as a result of this debate—and I will not now vote against this Motion if the opinion of the House is sought—we shall see a more co-operative and speedy approach to the Bill’s Committee stage so that we really can achieve reaching a Third Reading debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I was one of the signatories to the email that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to. I was very happy to do that, because although I of course support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his Motion, I additionally think that it is worth reflecting tonight on another aspect of the House of Lords’ reputation in this matter.
I have been involved with this issue in this House for several decades, and the House of Lords has, until now, shown extraordinary parliamentary leadership on this question. We have considered three other Bills apart from this one and we have had two other Select Committees. Personally, I was influenced in understanding the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by going to Oregon with her 20 years ago to look at the state of its situation. We did not agree—we came away with very different perspectives of what we saw—but we were both very much influenced by that. The House of Lords has shown authority, enormous value in its scrutiny and great honesty in its debates. I am very sad that in the last few weeks, which I fear has been partly because of some of the issues that have been mentioned tonight, the House of Lords, instead of being congratulated on its position on assisted dying, which has been the previous situation, has been heavily criticised for the nature of the—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I suggest that noble Lords do not interrupt other noble Lords when they are speaking.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I do not back away from the phrase “heavily criticised”. I cannot believe that anybody in this House who has at least absorbed some of the media coverage of these debates has not accepted that there has been no general agreement about the positions that have been taken, and more importantly, about the way in which some of those positions have been argued. There are, of course, enormous divisions of opinion, as there have always been, but in this House, they have been—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Is the noble Baroness absolutely confident that her remarks are pertinent to the Motion and the question of how much time should be allocated to the debate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, but I am trying to make the points about the value of the reputation of this House, specifically in relation to this particular subject—on which over many years we have built up an authority, which I am very sad to see dissipated if there are more time-wasting activities, which other noble Lords have referred to.
I hope that this Motion will be accepted, that we will go through with our very important work, that we will send the Bill back to the Commons in time for it to be appropriately considered there and—it is very important to say—that we regain our reputation for honest, lengthy, astute scrutiny and great authority on this subject.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I remember debates in this House on assisted dying over 20 or 25 years ago—the noble Baroness spoke in them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We have always taken a great interest in it.
It is very clear that in this House there is a small group who are passionately for assisted dying and a small group who are positively against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is very difficult to bring them together. The speech that he made today was very similar to the speech that he made about three weeks ago, asking for common sense to prevail and that we should discuss what the amendments should be. I applaud that approach, but it appears that the people moving the amendments do not want that to happen. They do not want the Bill to pass at all. That was very clear in the early debates I remember of 25 years ago. They are just not going to accept amendments; they want the Bill to be blocked.
As we are the second most important debating Chamber in the country, I find it extraordinary that, after the length of time we have taken debating it and listening, we cannot come to a conclusion.
I do not believe that the Front Benches are listening to the country at all about this. The country on the whole does not follow most of our debates on minor legislation, but people do know that we are being subjected to a filibuster in this House by a relatively small number of Members. It goes back to those early debates. The main argument against assisted dying, way back 25 years ago, was the sanctity of life. That has virtually disappeared, apart from the fact that two bishops mentioned it at Second Reading.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I agree that we could complete the Bill in the time allocated if we got a firm steer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about what he intends to do with the amendments we have already discussed. The closest we came to a steer from him was in our last session, discussing 18, 21 and 25 year-olds, when he said he would go away and think about possibly adding new tests to make it more certain that 18 year-olds had made the right decision on whether they should opt to die or not.
I have sat through all the debates here and I stand to be corrected, but I do not think the noble and learned Lord has agreed to accept in principle any of the other amendments that have been tabled. He gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he intends to defend every word in the Bill, line by line, and not produce reasoned amendments for Report. If he were to do that, I suspect we could make a great deal more progress.
I conclude by saying that, tomorrow, we will be discussing major amendments on palliative care, and many of them are quite different. If the noble and learned Lord were to stand up early on and say, “I like the principles of Amendments X, Y and Z, and I promise to go away and come back on Report with a better version of them”, I suspect we would make rapid progress. So it is in the noble and learned Lord’s hands to get this done in the next 10 days, and he should not blame those who are willing to talk about amendments which he gives the impression he would never accept in a month of Sundays.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I also support the idea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the Bill needs more time for scrutiny than is available through the usual tried and tested Private Member’s Bill process. We have to manage expectations, though, and I have been thinking about precedents for a Bill of this complexity. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I have been looking at balloted Private Members’ Bills from the House of Commons ballot that reached First Reading in this House in the 10 years from the start of the 2015 Session. It is very interesting.
In the other place, of course, ballot Bills are introduced by title only, with the full text appearing or changing at later stages. But the full text version as brought from the Commons provides a consistent and analytically robust basis for comparison. The average length of the Bills in that 10-year period was 8.8 pages, with a mean of five clauses. In contrast, this complex Bill, heralding major social and societal changes, has 51 pages, with 59 clauses. So it is hardly surprising that it needs lengthy scrutiny.
Eight of these pages were actually added by the sponsor on Report, with little or no discussion. In the other place, 92% of the amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor were not even debated, and just seven were put to MPs for decision. This data refutes the misleading impression being given in the national media, which suggests that your Lordships’ House is delaying progress by tabling and debating amendments, as in reality they are needed to improve the safety and care of patients.
I suggest that counting the number of amendments is misleading, because many are consequential on the change proposed. As my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested, there are about 10 major issues. The noble and learned Lord has not said which amendments, if any, even those recommended by the royal colleges and patient advocacy groups, he is willing to accept. Members are waiting for his active engagement and for a bit of give and take.
In the past 10 years, only 66—about a third—of all balloted Private Members’ Bills have become law. Of these successful Bills, the vast majority were government handouts or had explicit government support. Nobody can argue against scrutiny, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has recognised that a Bill of this length and complexity does not fit the usual model of a Private Member’s Bill. I have concluded that the kindest thing for the Government to do would be to seek to establish a royal commission to give this weighty issue the attention that it deserves. We cannot do it justice through the Private Members’ Bill process, but I agree that it needs time.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I hope that the noble and learned Lord gets an opportunity to reply to this debate, but I wondered whether I could ask what is perhaps the daft laddie question. Is he, or are the Government Front Bench, able to tell us how many days and what dates they think will be required for the Bill to get through its passage in Committee, on Report—bearing in mind that there may well be Divisions on Report—and then at Third Reading, so that proceedings here will be completed in adequate time before the end of the parliamentary Session, before it goes back to the other place? Of course, the other place will presumably need time on Fridays or Wednesdays, as I think they sometimes sit on Wednesdays to deal with Private Members’ Bills.
Irrespective of one’s views of the merits of the Bill or of the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, it would be enormously helpful if he could put some meat on the bones of “reasonable time”—the phrase he uses in his Motion. That would inform us in a very helpful way. If he cannot do it, perhaps the Government Front Bench could do so instead.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the process. Time in Committee is obviously linked to the progress of meetings, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for offering a one-on-one meeting on one aspect of the Bill.
However, the usual manner in Committee, as I have understood it from substantive Bills—usually government Bills—is to have themed meetings with quite a large number of Peers to discuss issues. There may be around 10, but I would say that there are more than 10 issues here. That is concentrated down on Report. If the noble and learned Lord could adopt that process, it would limit the time in Committee.
I might also remind the noble and learned Lord of his evidence to the Select Committee when I raised the issue of advertising. If noble Lords look at Clause 43, they would think that advertising was still on printed pieces of paper. We know that that is not the case but, due to the lack of government write-round on a Private Member’s Bill, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which has responsibility for the Online Safety Act, has no idea what the impact of that clause will be on that Act or on online advertising. In response to my questions, the noble and learned Lord accepted that he needs to come back with more detail on advertising.
I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
May I ask noble Lords to focus more clearly on the Motion in front of us and not get into discussing the Bill? What is before us is very narrow and could be disposed of quite quickly if we focus on that.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I support the intent behind the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I believe that it is right that the House be given the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in exhaustive detail, given the significance of the legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out, the comparison that can be legitimately drawn with government legislation of equal significance but perhaps less moment that has had a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.
I also think it right to take account of the point that was made fairly and succinctly by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: that we are being invited to commit to extra time without necessarily knowing how much and under what circumstances. We may receive enlightenment from the Government Front Bench; we may receive indications from Ministers as to what is envisaged; but it would be helpful to know, rather than to vote in favour of or to offer our support for a generalised sentiment rather than a precise plan of action. Indeed, some of the concern about the legislation being put forward has come from those who sympathise with the generalised sentiment of the legislation itself but worry profoundly about implementation.
In the evidence of the Committee that we have had so far, I believe that the debate has been characterised by high-quality interventions from all sides. I would briefly single out the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The debate she initiated on the age at which this momentous decision might be taken prompted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to acknowledge that many wise arguments were raised and that it was appropriate that some discussion should take place outside this place about how her concerns might be taken account of in the legislation. It was gracious of him to do so, but valuable as those conversations outside the Chamber are, they are no substitute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed out, for an acknowledgement in the Chamber of a willingness on the part of the promoters of the Bill and others to come forward with their own amendments, or to accept amendments from other Peers which ensure that the lacunae identified in the legislation are to be properly addressed before we reach Report and Third Reading, or on Report.
My final point—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The mover of the original Bill, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have written to all Members to say that their door is open, offering to discuss a way forward. The offer has been there, and the noble Lord should accept that.
Lord Gove (Con)
I did accept that, and if I did not make myself clear enough, let me make it absolutely clear: I consider it to be wise and gracious and I am grateful, but it is still no substitute for the legislative process itself and for legislators being satisfied that the acknowledgement of a fault or lacuna in the Bill is to be addressed through an amendment or to be rejected, so we can make a judgment about the Bill, unamended, on that basis. That is the purpose of legislative scrutiny. It is not about reassurances, however polite, well-meant and honourable; it is about legislation. This is a law-making Chamber.
I have two final points. The point was made by Joubert, the French philosopher, that it is better to comprehensively debate a principle without settling it than to settle it without comprehensive debate. That is the essence of the democratic principle—all the more so when we are legislating. I want to see the maximum amount of time, so that the amendments that have been put forward are properly scrutinised. It is not just a personal preference on my part, and here I take profound issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for whom I have enormous respect. She referred to what has been written about our debates outside. We may or may not wish to take account of that, but it is quite wrong to say that this House has been lowered in the estimation of outside observers because of the way in which we have handled the debate on this Bill.
Lord Gove (Con)
Noble Lords may not wish to hear it, but this is of direct relevance to the debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can we just turn the temperature of the House down a bit, please? There is no need for this. We have a very narrow Motion before us. Let us stick to the Motion and make a decision.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall move to the Woolsack in a few minutes, so I shall be mute, for which many noble Lords will be grateful. Perhaps I might just point out to the noble Lord, and perhaps to some of his colleagues who have graced us with their presence in recent months, that the principle that this House has in the way it conducts itself is self-regulation. Perhaps I could just define what self-regulation is not. Self-regulation is not regulating oneself in one’s own self-interest; it is regulating oneself in the interest of the whole House and of the reputation of the House, and to get business done. I think that certain noble Lords are in danger of misunderstanding exactly what we understand self-regulation to be, and they are doing themselves and their reputation no good.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the way to avoid introducing for the first time a guillotine Motion on a Bill in this House is for my noble and learned friend to specifically come within the next 10 days to answer each and every question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. That would solve the problem.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am grateful for those recent interventions. They certainly help me, and I am sure they assist the House. But it also assists the House to know that this House is more respected, not less, for giving extensive scrutiny to the Bill. This is the view of people, including those, such as Charlotte Ivers, who favour assisted dying. It would be a sad day if those of us who believe in exhaustive scrutiny and extensive debate were told that that was not in our best traditions.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say, thinking particularly about those who are living, but specifically about those who are dying, let us pass this Motion tonight and get on with the work.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asks: how much extra time? The answer surely is that that depends on what progress we make tomorrow and next week. Can I simply say this? There are many difficult issues posed by this Bill, but this Motion is not difficult at all. We are simply being asked to vote that this House believes that extra time should be granted to the extent required to ensure that we can come to a conclusion, whether it is in favour of this Bill, whether it is against this Bill or whether it is that the Bill should be amended. Let us get on and approve this Motion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have exhausted the debate. There is widespread support for this Motion, and for that I am incredibly grateful. Can I say just one thing? What this Motion, if passed, means is that the House is saying loudly, clearly and, I hope, unanimously that our job is to get to the end of the process of scrutinising the Bill.
I shall answer just two or three particular points that have been made. What is at the heart of it is the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. What will we do and how long will it take? I agree with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We need to craft informally a process that ensures that we get to the end of the process.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to say that, if this Motion were to pass, the usual channels would, in effect, convene a meeting and we would then seek a way forward. I have to say I am incredibly attracted to the things that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said: not his opposition to the Bill, I hasten to add, but to the proposition that there are—and this number may be wrong—about 10 crucial issues in relation to this Bill. Let us immediately try to identify what those 10 or so issues are and then reach a process by which we go through them. To the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that has been his position all along. He very helpfully led us to an identification of those 10 issues and we tried to do a grouping that reflected that, but it did not command support. I think we should look at that again.
It is so important for the House to come to the right conclusion. If we pass this Motion now, we will send a signal that our job is to craft a structure that means that we can get through the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I have listened to all that the noble and learned Lord said and I agree with the various statements which have been made about the duty to scrutinise, but I have also listened to those who have said that he has not responded to any of the amendments, apart from that on age. The issues are identified. Can he tell the House how he will respond in a positive manner, as Members on the Front Bench normally do when we are discussing Bills?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. I have quite scrupulously, as we have gone through the amendments in Committee, indicated which I accept or in principle accept; for example, in relation to 18 to 25 year-olds. Subsequent to that, we have had meetings, and I have gone through in some detail how we should deal with that, and we have reached agreement at those meetings in principle as to what to do. I am very grateful to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is nodding in relation to that.
In addition, for example, I have indicated that I am in favour in principle of some special protection for those who have suffered from a deprivation of liberty. I have also indicated—and I do this just by way of example—that in relation to multidisciplinary teams looking after people who are grievously ill or terminally ill, we should think of some way of incorporating their role into the Bill. It is obvious that I am not doing it enough, but I feel I have responded in some detail in relation to individual points. I have also indicated where I do not accept amendments. However, I am listening, and I need to improve in relation to that, because many people are saying that I am not responding adequately; but that will need to be part of the process that we adopt.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before the noble Baroness intervenes, can I just say that if we are having questions to the noble and learned Lord, they should be on the Motion and not on the wider issue of the Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before the noble and learned Lord makes his decision whether to press his Motion, I simply wanted to ask the Leader of the House whether, if this Motion is passed, she believes that a new form of procedure has then been created by this House. It will no longer really be a Private Member’s Bill. We will have a situation where, as a Back-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord will have demonstrated that it is possible to take control of the scheduling of business in this House. As there have been a lot of very positive contributions both from the noble and the learned Lord and from others in response to this Motion and a desire for this House to change the way in which it is dealing with this Bill, would it be better for him to withdraw the Motion rather than create a new situation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks me to respond. I do not know if she was here at the beginning, when I first commented, but I was very clear that the House will be making a decision on what it thinks. If the House makes a decision that it wishes to have extra time, then it will be a matter for discussion in the usual channels to see if that is available. That is not a new procedure. I was also very clear that it is not open to the Government to provide government time for this Bill; this is a Private Member’s Bill. But the usual channels, both government and opposition, and all parties, will listen to what the House has to say and reflect on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every single word the Leader said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before I move to adjourn the House, I wanted to touch on the impact of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The House has agreed the Motion, and the Government will reflect on that carefully with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has said, the Government remain neutral on the Bill, and I cannot give any firm commitments about what will happen next. But as is right, we will carefully think how we can progress the Bill outside government time.
I am sure noble Lords will have questions about what this means for tomorrow. As I have said, ultimately how the House sits on any given day is in the hands of the House, not me as Government Chief Whip. But, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, I do not consider it reasonable for the House to sit beyond the usual rising time tomorrow at this short notice. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has, of course, agreed with that, and has made that clear in his contribution. I will therefore seek to adjourn the House at around 3 pm tomorrow, as I have done in previous weeks. I will then, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, seek to hold urgent discussions with the usual channels and the House authorities early next week, to seek to find a way forward to deliver what the House has just agreed. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.