Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Friday 7th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of Hospice UK, formerly Help the Hospices, which is the umbrella organisation for hospices in the United Kingdom. Hospice UK does not have a collective view on the principle behind the Bill, so everything that I might say in this debate is the view that I express personally, not the view of the organisation—although I hope that it is a view informed by the knowledge that I have acquired of the remarkable extent to which palliative care, an area in which we in this country lead the world, can alleviate the suffering, which is the backdrop to all the issues that we are discussing during the course of this debate.

I want to limit my brief remarks to the issues that arise in the context of the amendment. Palliative care is increasingly—not yet, alas, universally—available, but we are making good progress towards that objective. However, one of the problems that arise is that not everyone who could benefit from palliative care is aware that it is available. That has a direct bearing on the issues we are discussing and on these amendments. One of the things that it is vital to bring to the attention of someone who is contemplating the awful decision that the Bill makes possible is that they should be fully aware of the extent to which they could take advantage of palliative care to relieve their suffering.

In the context of these amendments, one of the factors that I would expect a court to take into account is the availability of palliative care for the person making the application, the extent to which that person knows about the availability of palliative care, and the extent to which that has been made available to the person concerned. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

I merely wish to ask whether the noble Lord is aware that Clause 3(4) requires both doctors to be satisfied that the patient has been fully informed of palliative, hospice and other care available to that person. In other words, this is in the Bill.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

I am so aware but I would prefer that investigation to be carried out by the court. That is the issue between us. It is another reason why one or other of these amendments—I prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—should be passed if the Bill is to become law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I do not believe that hard cases make bad law. I have always thought that that is one of the phrases which make it difficult to have a sensible conversation. I believe that you have to be careful not to make law because of a stereotyped position. One of the difficulties in this debate is that we tend to have stereotyped views about what is happening at the bedside. It is important to realise that a whole range of different things happen at the bedside and the relationship between the patient and his or her friends and family is never the same.

I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. I am not a lawyer and I cannot be precise as to whether his particularities are the best that we can achieve, but I hope that the House will think seriously about the need for three key elements. First, there is speed. If we are going to have this Bill, we want someone to be able to make this decision with the courtesy that speed demands. The process needs to be fast enough to be commensurate with the seriousness of the decision. Otherwise it lengthens something which someone is in desperate need to finish.

Secondly, it needs rigour. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said that. There is nothing wrong with rigour, unless it is of a kind which makes speed impossible. I do not think that the rigour which the noble Lord suggested makes speed impossible. It says to the public as a whole that we have made this change in the law, but it is not a change in the way in which we think about human life. Those who support this Bill believe that it is an enhancement of their view of human life and that the rigour is the mechanism whereby society says that it still believes deeply in the standards and values which respect human life. On this specific and particular occasion, according to these very rigorous rules, they believe it right for someone to take their own life with the assistance of someone else.

Thirdly, we have to do this in a way in which the aftermath is as manageable as possible. I hope that noble Lords will think very carefully about the effect of assisted suicide on the family and friends after it has happened. I believe that the Victorians spoke far too little about sex and far too much about death. The reverse is true today. We do not understand—because very often we are unprepared to talk about it—the effect of death on the rest of the family. I remember receiving a very considerable rebuke when I allowed—and, indeed, organised—my children to see their dead grandmother. I thought it was necessary to start the whole process of grieving. I have become more aware of the different ways in which people react today and of the difficult issue of how someone might react to death before it happens. Anyone who has been involved pastorally—whether in parliamentary or religious terms or just in terms of neighbourliness—recognises that it is hard to know how a particular person will react ultimately to what has happened.

Changes in the law along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has proposed are very important. We should be prepared to recognise that, although this is a decision of the patient, guaranteed by the law to be an individual decision, we as legislators have to legislate in a way which also respects and protects the effect of that decision on society. In an odd way, that is actually our biggest job. We represent society in trying to make these tough decisions. I hope that your Lordships will take seriously the need to do as my noble friend Lord Carlile has suggested, not just for the patient, not just for the doctor and not just for the assurance that we have really professional assessment of the medical advice, but also to make sure that when the children look back on the occasion, they are protected in the best possible way and are able to accept it. After all, whichever side of this argument you are on, that is crucial. Anyone who does not realise what grieving has to be if the future is not going to be seriously tarnished and damaged has not been through that experience.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the declaration in Amendment 172? I have no difficulty with the declaration except that it changes the nature of the Bill. Is this a typo or a deliberate change? The declaration declares that the person is going,

“to die within three months”.

However, the Bill says six months. If we are going to change what is in the Bill by such a significant amount, it would be better if it were an amendment in its own right.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is about to speak but can I give a slight and practical example of how witnesses will approach these different inquiries. I find myself entirely in agreement, as any Cross-Bencher should be, with both sides of the House. How does a witness approach these different inquiries? They approach the criminal inquiry with the narrowest possible dimension about the facts in dispute. I have appeared at the No. 1 court at the Old Bailey, so I know what it feels like. You are always told that you should answer only the question you are asked. When you appear in front of a parliamentary inquiry, you have the same approach with a view as to where the political issues will come from, which you have to think about. When you appear, as I did, in front of Leveson, you do so on a completely different basis. My evidence to Leveson began in the 1820s. In other words, you are looking at the whole issue in the round. I do not understand why there needs to be any dispute between the two sides of the House in this debate. Have a criminal inquiry, have Tyrie and have a judge-led inquiry into the ultimate circumstances of the way in which the banking culture has taken over parts of our society.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, first, let us be clear that these amendments have very little to do with the Bill before us today. They are all about the Opposition’s misguided attempts to slow down what we need to do to deal with the consequences of the LIBOR scandal. We need rapidly to restore public confidence in the financial services industry, which the Government are pressing on with. We do not need to kick these very serious matters into the long grass, as the Opposition now propose. It is time for Parliament, as well as the Government, to take clear leadership on these matters. The events of recent days have highlighted that the culture of banking is badly broken. The Government are in the process of fixing the system, but we need to change the mindset of the profession and those working in it. This is about restoring banking to what it should be about: to be the most, and not the least, trusted profession.

The basic facts of the attempted LIBOR manipulation are clear. There have already been published reports from three regulators in the UK and the US. We do not need a judicial inquiry to tell us what the facts are. A judicial inquiry would be principally aimed at establishing the facts; it would likely take years to complete, might not be able to start until after prosecutions had been completed and would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.

Now we need three things. First, we need the rapid prosecution of individuals who may have broken the criminal law. This is what the SFO and the Crown Office in Scotland are looking to do. Secondly, we need to look at how LIBOR cannot be fixed again, which is the subject of Martin Wheatley’s review. Thirdly, we need to look into the ethical and professional standards of the financial services industry and we need to do so urgently to ensure that the banking industry is serving the needs of the wider UK economy and the continued global competitiveness of London and the UK.

For this reason, the Government recommend that Parliament considers undertaking an urgent inquiry into the culture and ethics of the banking industry to help shape the urgent reform that is so much needed. The Government propose the establishment of a full parliamentary committee of inquiry, comprised of representatives from both Houses, and set up by a joint resolution of both Houses. The proposed terms of reference for the committee are building on the Treasury Select Committee’s work and drawing on the conclusions of UK and international regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process, consider what lessons are to be learnt in relation to transparency, conflicts of interest and the culture and professional standards of the, financial services industry, including the interaction of these with civil sanctions and criminal law. While I hear noble Lords seeking to paint this as a narrow inquiry, on any construction, these words will give the Joint Committee a very wide remit.

I am also glad that the Opposition now seem to support the creation of this committee. I have laid out what is required. We certainly do not require a proliferation and duplication of reviews that could go on for several years. We recommend that the inquiry should commence immediately and conclude by Christmas. As noble Lords are aware, the Government plan to introduce the banking Bill that will implement the recommendations of Sir John Vickers’s Independent Commission on Banking in January next year. This will bring far-reaching and lasting changes to the structure of British banks. The Government’s preferred timetable for the committee of inquiry would allow the Government to use the Bill to make any appropriate further changes needed to the standards of the banking industry and the criminal and civil powers needed to regulate it, and hold people to account for their behaviour.

The Joint Committee will do its work well and comprehensively and will report by Christmas. However, if, at that stage, this House or another place was not satisfied with the work of the Joint Committee, it will be possible for Parliament to press for a further inquiry. At that time, the inquiry proposed by this amendment would not even have started. The Government fully intend that Parliament should play a significant role in getting to the bottom of what happened and helping make the system more robust. It is surely highly desirable and consistent with many of our previous discussions in recent months that your Lordships’ House should be fully engaged in the process, bringing the full breadth of its expertise to bear from Peers of all the main parties and none.

This is already a big Bill, on which time is now being taken up by debating the merits of an inquiry—a debate that will not help noble Lords with the key business of the House today, namely scrutinising the detailed contents of the Financial Services Bill. It may help your Lordships to know that in another place on Thursday there will be debates on two Motions—one an opposition Motion, another a government Motion—to consider in detail the questions that we have debated at some length this afternoon. It is appropriate to leave another place to debate those Motions on Thursday so that we get on with and stick to the Committee’s core task today on the Financial Services Bill.

FSA Investigation into LIBOR

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, first, as we discussed last week, there are a significant number of other banks under investigation. Secondly, we could debate the history of this for a very long time, but this Government are moving extremely fast on a number of fronts to plug the gaps through one or both of the pieces of legislation that are or will shortly be before Parliament. We need to get this right, which is what we are doing.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, could I ask about the statement that the FSO will begin to consider criminal charges in the next month? I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in referring to the level of outrage in the country about these events. The SFO could announce today that it is launching a criminal investigation. It is about not criminal charges but a criminal investigation into conspiracy to defraud, because if this is not a conspiracy to defraud, then I have never seen one—and I have seen a few.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, just to repeat: the SFO is actively and urgently considering the evidence to see what criminal charges can be brought. It expects to come to a conclusion by the end of this month. That is exactly where it should focus its efforts.

Financial Crime: Legislation

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I know that I risk upsetting the sensibilities of some noble Lords when I say that I am glad that the Bribery Act has not yet been implemented. This is not because I take a cavalier attitude towards corruption, but because it is only fair to British business that the Act should not yet be in force. I do not suspect that our companies are all involved in shady practices and that they should be allowed to continue in that vein for as long as they can get away with it. On the contrary, I have sufficient faith in British business to believe that it can win contracts without resorting to buying them in one way or another. My qualms about the implementation of the Act coincide with those voiced so admirably by my noble friend Lord Hodgson.

I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has to say, and I cannot agree with him completely. To be critical of the Bribery Act is not to condone the payment of massive bungs to corrupt dictators and their chums, nor even to go along with expensive gifts being lavished on minor officials in the hope of winning their good will. It is merely to say that business, like life, has nuances that need to be understood. Yet the business world has been very slow to raise its voice publicly to query any aspect of the Act. It knows, as I do, that to question any aspect of this legislation is to risk being branded as somebody who condones crookery, as if one is either in favour of the Act or in favour of bribery—and this, of course, is nonsense. We need to remember that we are in complicated territory here, where perceptions differ.

In 1997, as noble Lords will surely recall, Formula 1 racing in the shape of Bernie Ecclestone wrote a cheque for £1 million and subsequently found that plans to ban Formula 1 from tobacco advertising, so important to its finances, had been put on hold. Naturally, there was no connection between the two occurrences. The then Prime Minister was appalled that anyone should think there might be. He was, as noble Lords will remember, a pretty straight sort of guy. Others saw things differently. As I say, we are in complicated territory. I found it as dispiriting as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when the SFO inquiry into BAE was dropped; I think that it was that pretty straight sort of guy who was involved there, too.

The Bribery Act as drafted would subject business to a more draconian regime than even that of the United States. What is more, it attempts to throw its net over companies that are not even headquartered in the UK but do business here. A company that is based in Russia, with some link to the UK and doing business in Kazakhstan, for instance, could find its activities there making its directors guilty of breaking UK law. That would be quite a challenge for UK prosecutors. It seems that the impossibility of stretching the arms of British law quite so far have now been recognised and that reassurances are being given that a mere listing on the London Stock Exchange does not bring a company within the ambit of the Act. Look at the motley collection of overseas companies that now make up a large proportion of the FTSE 100 and you will understand why this point had to be clarified.

The previous Government were absolutely justified in their efforts to prevent potentates being paid large sums in exchange for contracts, but this Act goes too far. Not only does it risk disadvantaging British business, but it puts those who are striving to win much needed work for British people in the appalling position of not knowing what will or will not be considered legitimate business practice. Until we have clear guidance on matters such as facilitation payments and hospitality, this Act should not be implemented. Surely any facilitation payments are outlawed under the Bribery Act, despite them being allowed, as we have heard, even under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In parts of the world, a small sum ensures that goods or documents move from A to B. Presiding Governments condone that situation; it is part of the prevailing culture. We might wish that situation to change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, does, but for Britain to say no when the rest of the world says yes is commercial madness. One leading UK company doing business in Colombia decided that it had better stop paying the minor payments that it made. The result was that every one of its vans was impounded and its drivers imprisoned. We have to move carefully on this, just as we do on hospitality.

Another issue is the fact that government has to set the lead in conduct rather than just in legislation. It is imperative that UK Trade and Investment and its special representative should be models of complete probity as they attempt to drum up business for Britain. Their aims are admirable, but there is widespread disquiet about some of the relationships that have arisen. This will not stop. Surely it is time for change. Some noble Lords have expressed concern about the reputation of British business abroad in the absence of implementation of the Bribery Act, but I fear that questions over UKTI might do at least as much damage, if not more.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I spent much of the autumn teaching senior police officers in India. We explained the Bribery Act to them. They told me—

[Noble Lords]

Order. There is a speakers list.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I apologise to the House. I misunderstood.