Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, the purpose of my amendments in this group is to ensure that all patients’ needs are taken into account and support is given so that people have a genuine choice. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton will speak to this group. Amendment 149 would ensure that the subject of assisted suicide is not raised within 48 hours of a terminal diagnosis. Perhaps this should be considered a cooling-off period. I have been with someone when they received a devastating diagnosis that they were dreading. They had not considered assisted suicide, but neither of us heard much after initially being told.

This is about a timing issue that could be seen to be a power imbalance or an implied endorsement. Options need to be very carefully discussed. If discussed straight away, treatments might seem so awful that assisted suicide is considered the best option. It might be quicker or easier to talk about this than a complex set of treatment options. To give patients choice, a multi-agency team assessment should take place to identify current support needs and ensure that steps are being taken to meet those needs.

This amendment would also offer some protection to doctors. If the conversation is discretionary, there may be a difficult legal dilemma: if it is raised at the initial consultation, it might be seen to be implicit coercion, but if doctors fail to raise it, that might be considered blocking access. There was a case in South Australia, mentioned in the Voluntary Assisted Dying (Voluntary Assisted Dying Board Annual Report 2022-23). Siblings said that, when they were with their relation, who was given VAD, it was the only time that doctors had shown empathy or understanding. The Medical Defence Union, which supports 200,000 healthcare professionals, is deeply concerned about the appropriate time to raise the subject.

This leads us into a grey area of suicide ideation. We fund suicide prevention; we do as much as we can to prevent someone dying by suicide. This Bill could lead to unforeseen consequences. As previously debated, it does not guarantee a quick or painless death, and if this process exists, the rate of suicide may even rise, as has happened in Australia in the over-65 age group.

There is also an assumption that if a terminal diagnosis is given, the process will be entered into, which might not be the case. ONS data from 2022 shows that people with terminal conditions can feel suicidal. One year after diagnosis for low-survival cancers or COPD, the suicide rate for patients was 2.4 times higher than the suicide rate for the matched controls. One year after diagnosis for chronic ischemic heart conditions, the suicide rate for patients was nearly two times higher than for the matched controls.

In oral evidence, Dr Price said that, of those who would qualify under the Bill,

“around 20% will have diagnosable depression, around 10% will have a wish to hasten death, and around 4% will have a more persistent wish to hasten death”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee 30/1/25; col. 270.]

She added:

“Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee 30/1/25; col. 276.]


The Royal College of Psychiatrists has raised issues, stating that doctors do not know how to assess the presence of depression. In a large-scale survey of professionals in England and Wales, co-authored by Professor Gareth Owen in 2021, only 6.9% of non-psychiatric doctors rated themselves as assessing capacity “very well”. When Fazilet Hadi from Disability Rights UK gave evidence, she said:

“We often find that doctors, because they cannot treat or cure us, do devalue our lives”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee 29/1/25; col. 180.]


She was referring to disabled people.

The VAD review board of the Australian state of Victoria says that doctor initiation might be the reason for increased take-up. Previously, there was a prohibition on doctors raising it, but that gagging clause has now been removed. A JAMA Psychiatry paper from 2019 also highlighted the heightened risk during the first week after diagnosis. It said:

“Clinically, our results identify specific cancers associated with significantly elevated risk of suicide”.


The combined literature suggests that the first week after diagnosis has the highest risk for suicide, and it falls thereafter. It therefore makes sense that those who have received a shock terminal diagnosis are most vulnerable and suggestible and may have low self-worth. Macmillan Cancer Support recommends a holistic needs assessment as part of cancer care. The Bill will be better for having this assessment built in and will lead to more patient-centred care. It is impossible to have true agency when only one realistic choice is offered. That is why it is crucial that the patient’s current support needs are identified after diagnosis.

I strongly support Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. I feel very strongly that patients should be able to discuss their diagnosis and treatment with no fear of potentially being encouraged or having this process suggested to them.

On Amendment 176, we have covered complications before. The noble and learned Lord said in the Chamber that a discussion should take place before the first set of drugs are taken, and, if they do not work, the patient can choose to take a second dose of poison. But what is there to protect the doctor? Will the wishes be written down or witnessed? What should the doctors do if the drugs do not work? Should the doctor have a second dose with them? Will it be a doctor or, perhaps, a physician assistant? Is euthanasia the next step? It could be seen to be the next logical step in expansion. If one or two bad deaths are recorded, we might be told that we need to be more compassionate, and this is the best way to go.

In Hawaii, a doctor allegedly completed the death of a patient after the woman began choking; it was reported in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. That doctor was charged with second-degree murder. Legally, a patient needs to know the effect of the drugs. Clause 12(2) refers to the need to discuss the complications, but we cannot play down the risks. Data from Oregon from between 2012 and 2022 showed a complication rate of 11%. In the Netherlands, in one-third of cases it takes up to 30 hours for a patient to die. As I have said before, assisted suicide is often represented as painless and quick, allowing for a calm and meaningful goodbye, but the reality from cases around the world shows that it can be far from this. The case of Kurt from Colorado has been raised previously by my noble friend Lady Finlay.

There has been much said in this Chamber about the importance of words, and I strongly believe that the word treatment does not cover what we are talking about. Using “treatment” to mean a lethal mixture of drugs intended to end life is clearly an attempt to soften the blow of reality. That is why people are not aware of the frequency of complications, and of the need to know the wishes of the patient in the event of complications.

My Amendment 200 is very similar to Amendment 149— it just seeks to amend a different part of the Bill. Briefly, I will talk to Amendment 200A and the unique context around the preliminary discussion, because failure to comply with regulations is appropriately treated as misconduct and subject to existing disciplinary procedures. I know that the noble and learned Lord is not keen to ask someone why they would want an assisted suicide, but I think the question should be asked. People do not need to answer, but we need to ask, to understand the process and look at whether there are other ways that we can improve our health service.

In Victoria, in 2023, the reasons for accessing VAD were not recorded, so the nature and source of the suffering—which is a clear criterion for access to VAD—is not known. This information could help us improve legislation in the future, or close gaps. The impact evaluation of VAD is undertaken by researchers funded by time-competitive grants, which means the results can be piecemeal and the data not always accurate. In 2023-24, 10 doctors with the highest VAD caseloads consulted on 55% of all VAD cases. In Australia, the VAD substance is often taken in the absence of a health professional, and there are no specific requirements or procedures for gathering or publishing information, including on whether complications have occurred.

Turning to my Amendments 207 and 207A, I have previously quoted Tommy Jessop and his concerns for people with Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome put great store in people in positions of trust around them, and the Learning From Lives and Deaths report that was published in January 2026 discussed some of the challenges. The proportion of deaths of people with learning disabilities classified as avoidable was 40.2% in 2023; it was 21.8% for the general population in 2022, so the figure is almost double. That demonstrates that there are problems in healthcare for people with learning disabilities. Some 72.7% of adults with learning disabilities who died in 2023 were reported to have received the reasonable adjustments they required when they accessed care, but conversely, 27.3% were reported to have needed at least one reasonable adjustment that they were not provided with.

There are already deficiencies in our system, and disabled people are discouraged by ableist attitudes in our culture. In 2024, Autism Alliance UK reported that 91% of autistic people feel that society does not accept them, or only sometimes accepts them. That is the reason why my amendments would widen the definition, so that we should be looking to support from a “guardian, or independent person”. Many families are loving and caring, but we have to recognise that some are not, and we should ensure that people have the right protection and support around them. I beg to move.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my amendment in this group, Amendment 200B. It would insert a new clause to say that care professionals are not permitted to raise the subject of assistance. For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed new clause says that anyone who is engaged in patient care may not

“raise, suggest, encourage or initiate consideration of the subject of the provision of assistance under this Act”.

There are four main reasons why I have tabled this amendment. First, it would give clarity and absolute legal certainty to those in the medical profession and to care professionals regarding the initiation of discussion of the subject. We know that other parts of the Bill set out a clear position on what actions will be taken by medical professionals when it comes to the administration of the assisted death, but it is important that we have a clear legal position when it comes to the front end of the process. That is not simply to give assurance that there is clarity in the law; I think it would give comfort and certainty to anyone who is involved in the care profession. If I were a care professional, I would want to know with certainty what I am entitled to do and not entitled to do. My amendment would give a level of support to those people.

Secondly, the amendment is very much in the spirit of trying to create a distinction between healthcare and the provision of assisted death. A concern has been raised on a number of occasions in this Committee about the extent to which assisted death will alter the perception of the National Health Service and its mission statement. This amendment in and of itself would not solve all those problems, but at least it would go some way to having a level of protection for the National Health Service, which is very much the jewel in the crown of this society. It was created through probably the most significant legislation that a Labour Government ever put through, and it is important that we look at the implications of this.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord was able to introduce his remarks before he has to go and perform his functions as chairman of the Committee. I have only a few things to say, and my amendment is discrete, in the sense that it does not really affect much of the rest of the Bill. It can be taken quite briefly, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will be able to agree to it, not least because it bolsters the job that he once held.

With respect, I disagree with only one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, made. The function of the commissioner is not simply administrative; there is a judicial element to their work, which is found in Clause 4(4)(d). One of the principal functions of the commissioner is

“determining applications for reconsideration of panel decisions under section 18”.

That said, I fully accept that it is a mixed-function job: it is partly administrative and partly judicial—but then so are quite a lot of senior judicial jobs. The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls all have heavy administrative burdens as well as having to perform a judicial function, and no one would suggest, I venture to say, that those people should be appointed directly by the Prime Minister.

It is more constitutionally appropriate for the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to be appointed, as so many other judicial and quasi-judicial posts are, by the sovereign on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. I appreciate that the office of the Lord Chancellor has changed a lot since the 2005 Act—more’s the pity, in my view, but there we are. That was a long time ago. When I become Prime Minister, of course, I shall have it changed.

There is a nice distinction to be drawn with the appointments made in the way that I suggest. If my amendment is accepted by the Committee or by the House as a whole, it will obviously have a knock-on effect on the appointment of the deputy commissioner under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1—but let us not delay ourselves with that. All I am saying is that it is more appropriate for this particular function to be appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, as so many similar posts are.

A Minister responding for the Government in the other place said that the investigatory powers commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister, and he, like the assisted dying commissioner, has to be a sitting or retired member of the senior judiciary. But that is a false point. The distinction between this job and the investigatory powers commissioner is that the investigatory powers commissioner deals with matters of national security—which are essentially a matter for the Prime Minister—whereas this assisted dying commissioner will deal not with matters of national security, foreign policy or anything of that nature but simply with the workings of this Bill, or this Act as it may yet become.

This a very short and simple point that I am sure the noble and learned Lord can easily agree with, because it does not damage the Bill. It is simply a technical adjustment of the route to appointment, and I urge the Committee to support it.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group, two of which stand in my name. The third is Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which I have co-signed and will touch on briefly now.

Amendment 128 is essentially probing in nature. The Bill lists the principal functions of the commissioner—we do not take particular exception to that—but does not outline their specific duties, so we feel that there is a bit of a gap at present and are probing whether the duties are correct and whether the commissioner has a role in ensuring effective oversight. I look forward to hearing the response of the Bill’s sponsor on that.

I move on to Amendment 129, following on from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. When I arrived today I did not anticipate that she would be my warm-up act in relation to the amendment—I thank her for her remarks. The amendment essentially deals with whether the commissioner should be required to be either a senior judge or a retired judge. In part it also has a slightly probing quality, and again I will listen to the remarks of the Bill’s sponsor. Given where the passage of the Bill has gone so far and where it might land—the situation is slightly fluid—and although I appreciate that, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has made suggestions on how we could inject a level of judicial introduction to the panels, we will probably be keen to press this on Report if the issue is not resolved and we are left with the current situation.

The reason for that is that when the Bill was introduced in the Commons, one of its core elements was the judicial function and, indeed, judges on the panels. That was one of the great selling points of the supposed—and slightly self-proclaimed, I have to say—safest Bill in the world. But that position has been resiled from and, although I am sure that the Bill’s sponsor will give reasons for it, we have moved away from that core element. If we do not have that core element of a judge on the panel, do we leave a situation in which the commissioner has to be either a senior serving judge or a retired judge? Would that create a veneer of judicial impact when the core element has been taken out?

That is all the more appropriate when we look at the functions that have been listed for the commissioner, of which there are five under Clause 4(4). Paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to “receiving documents” and compiling a list of eligible panel members. It is hard to see why those functions, which are essentially administrative in nature, would require a level of judicial input. Similarly, paragraph (c) relates to

“making arrangements in relation to such panels”.

Again, that function lies largely within administrative competence rather than requiring any element of judicial quality.

The one area that does touch on that, as has been highlighted, is paragraph (d), which talks about the reconsideration of cases, but cases are not to be reconsidered on their own merits. The Bill’s sponsor in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, said that the commissioner is

“not acting as a judge”,

so there is a query about the level of judicial impact even of paragraph (d). Finally, under paragraph (e) there will be a monitoring role, particularly as regards medical statistics. There is a question mark in relation to that. If we are looking for somebody to undertake that role, which I think was initially put within the remit of the Chief Medical Officer, it seems to me that a medical professional is much better suited to it. There are queries about the applicability and whether we are simply creating a façade of judicial involvement by having the requirements currently in the Bill.

My Amendment 496C would afford a person, if they desire it, the opportunity of a hearing before the commissioner, rather than their case being decided by a paper hearing. That would cover aspects such as someone being registered disabled under the Act, the availability of communication, cognitive impairment and mental distress, in the interests of justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

That is what I am hoping. Thank you very much.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I rise to speak to two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 496A and 496F. At the outset, I want to give an apology to the sponsor and to the Committee as a whole, in line with the Chief Whip’s procedural recommendations. Given that I suspect that this will carry on at least until 6 pm, I will unfortunately have to leave almost certainly before the end of this debate to catch the last flight home to Northern Ireland.

Both these amendments, like a number of the amendments that I have submitted, deal with concerns that have been raised with me by disability groups. We are aware, again without reiterating the detail of this, that a wide range of concerns has been raised by a large number of groups representing the disabled, which vary between having some concerns and total opposition to the Bill. As we know, no disabled group has expressed support for the Bill. Where concerns are being raised, it is important and incumbent that, where we can try to improve the Bill by trying to take on those concerns, we listen to them.

I will deal with the two amendments briefly, Amendment 496A would add an additional ground to the grounds for reconsideration: failure to adequately consider or to be inconsistent with evidence of disability-related vulnerabilities. I suppose the aim of this is to provoke an examination of the extent to which reconsideration focuses on the particular needs of the disabled. It may not necessarily be the route that I would pursue on Report, but the purpose of this is to ensure that the commissioner, when looking at this, focuses explicitly on the impact on disability and vulnerability.

Prisoners for Palestine: Hunger Strikes

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will go to the non-affiliated Benches and then to the Conservative Benches.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise for my voice. I will try to keep going. It is not actually hurting the way it sounds, so noble Lords need not feel too much sympathy. I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and support Amendment 146, which I have signed.

Most of the Bill, as noble Lords know, does not apply to Northern Ireland, but Part 4 does. These very important amendments deal with deporting foreign criminals. I very much support the Government’s move to do that, but I hope the Committee needs no reminding that this House passed three Bills recently that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, but we then discovered the courts overruled that. We had the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act. We have had legal opinion from the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also not be able to apply. We were not able to bring in the export of live animals for slaughter Act to the whole United Kingdom as it does not apply in Northern Ireland.

The Minister is probably hearing this for the first time. Many Ministers have had to sit through statutory instruments in which those of us who wish to bring out the injustices of the Windsor Framework have been able to do so. However, Article 2 of the Windsor Framework overrules the sovereign Parliament; it very simply says that EU laws—laws that are not made in this House but by a foreign institution—overrule what our sovereign Parliament says. Whatever the history of this, and whatever party brought it in, we should all be beginning to realise that this is just not sustainable.

The three pieces of legislation to which I have referred have been overruled in respect of the people of Northern Ireland, due to parts of that legislation that offended EU rights and legislation. In the well-known Dillon case, the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. The relevant parts of the Dillon judgment are now before the Supreme Court, and we hope to get a judgment on that soon, which will give us more context to see how we are being affected by the Windsor Framework.

This specific amendment deals with the deportation of foreign criminals. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, if a foreign criminal is an EU citizen already living in Northern Ireland and this law comes in, they will have enhanced protection against deportation. If they are not an EU citizen but a foreign criminal from somewhere else in the world who is living in Northern Ireland, they are also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have if they were living in Great Britain, because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter Of Fundamental Rights. I do not need to tell noble Lords that Article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined and that there cannot be a provision for automatic deportation. Part 4 of this Bill is going to do precisely that: for a foreign criminal convicted in our courts, the presumption will be towards deporting them.

Anyone with any common sense must think that it would be outrageous if we end up with a law that says that a foreign criminal living in Great Britain and found guilty can be deported but that a foreign criminal living in another part of our own country, the United Kingdom, cannot. That is something we need to address. The Minister never seems to want to tell us whether he has had legal advice from the Attorney-General, but if he has, he will probably say that this is okay. But they have said that on three Bills, and each time they have been proved wrong. Noble Lords will forgive me if there is a little scepticism about how the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland.

It is an important issue not only for Northern Ireland’s citizens but for citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom. At some stage, we have to look at the constitutional issue of whether we can, in our own country, make our own laws that apply to the whole country. That really does need addressing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, there is nothing about this in the Explanatory Notes—it has been completely ignored. The purpose of tonight’s amendment is to raise this issue and make it clear that many people believe that this will not be able to apply to Northern Ireland, and to ask the Minister to say very clearly that, if this Bill goes through, there will be an absolute determination—whatever it takes—to make sure that it applies in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is good to see that even a hoarse and croaky voice cannot silence her.

I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. I particularly commend Amendment 146, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which offers a common-sense solution to a very real problem. As has been indicated by the previous two speakers, this is yet another problem that has undoubtedly arisen because of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It is clear that we need a much more fundamental solution that tackles and recasts that relationship.

While we await that solution from government, and a recognition of the need to embrace that, we cannot simply sit on our hands and hope that everything will be alright until then, because this represents a real undermining of the Bill itself. Even the strongest supporter of the Windsor Framework or the protocol would have to admit that their application in these circumstances represents a high level of overreach. If the rationale behind our current arrangements with the EU as regards Northern Ireland is to regulate trade and try to protect the EU single market then the issues of the deportation of foreign criminals and immigration stand a mile away. They serve no purpose in the supposed objectives of that relationship.

There is a very good reason why issues around deportation are handled on a national basis, in whichever nation it happens to be. If there are regional variations within a country on issues such as deportation, that is, frankly, a road down which lies madness. That is what is being threatened by the current position we are left in. The Government in recent weeks have laid out a range of measures to try to help tackle and be serious about dealing with illegal immigration and foreign criminals, some of which are contained within this legislation. However, if the Government are to be successful in this objective, but do not tackle the issue relating to Northern Ireland, they leave their position fatally undermined.

This is not simply a constitutional affront and an outrage; it is a very real practical difficulty. If we are left with a situation in which this cannot be applied in Northern Ireland, or if a defence is offered by foreign national criminals to avoid deportation, this not only creates a situation in which Northern Ireland is treated as a second-class citizen but it leaves the whole of the UK vulnerable on this issue. Northern Ireland then becomes simply a back door to those criminals—a safe haven to either come in from or return to, with a perceived greater level of protection for those criminals than would be the case elsewhere. Wherever we set the boundaries on the issue of deportation, we need something that applies across the whole of the United Kingdom.

As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in particular, this is a real and practical issue. We have seen on a number of occasions, in particular in the three court rulings that the noble Baroness outlined, that this is not simply a theoretical debating issue but a practical issue in which rulings have been made. For instance, there are many in this House who would see deep flaws with the Rwanda Act, but the important thing about the ruling on that was that the courts said that EU law was supreme on this issue and therefore overruled the position in Northern Ireland, which meant that it could not be applied there. That renders the entire legislative process a nonsense. If we do not fix this, we will be left in exactly the same position.

So there is a challenge for the Government: they need to embrace what I think is a common-sense solution, to make their own legislation work better. I look forward to the response from the Minister. I hope that he will not simply say that this is not necessary and that they have given an assurance, because we have been down this road time and time again. With previous legislation, we have had reassurances, in this House and the other place, that the Government were completely confident that it would all be watertight and there would be no problem. However, on each occasion, the courts overruled the Government’s position, which was found to be wrong. I look forward to the Government responding and—I hope—adopting this amendment, because something of this nature is clearly needed if we are to solve that practical problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I will very briefly go back to a point about Amendment 122A that I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to explain the pressure on prisons and the need for places, but I have already suggested earlier today a far better solution to that.

I will make two points. First, if someone comes here to commit a crime—for example, a drug dealer or a contract criminal—it is no punishment to be sent back. In fact, it is a bonus for them, because they do not have to pay for the return trip. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the most rigorous examination will take place before people are deported.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I think that a very valid point has been made. I immediately think of the situation—

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

The noble Lord has already spoken.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I am intervening.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

It is Committee.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

It is Committee, so I am entitled to speak in relation to that point.

The case that comes to my mind would highlight the absurdity of the position of simply having an immediate deportation: namely, the Russian agents involved in the Salisbury attempted murder. Had they been captured and convicted, they could have been immediately sent back to Russia on that basis, possibly to a hero’s welcome, rather than any level of punishment. It shows the absurdity, and I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord.