Assisted Dying Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Warner Excerpts
Friday 7th November 2014

(9 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my noble friend. I believe that legal aid would be available if necessary under the exceptionality provisions. When I was asked this question yesterday, I reflected on the cost of the recent funeral of my own mother. I anticipate that these costs would potentially be about the same as for a funeral. We are talking about life and death here. My noble friend is a distinguished member of the medical profession. We are talking about taking a huge constitutional step which would allow a medical practitioner to participate in the killing of another human being, deliberately bringing about their death. This is very different from the doctrine of double effect, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords have spoken on numerous occasions in your Lordships’ House. I do not regard the cost issue of life and death as being very significant in this context.

In conclusion, I hope that I have made the basic—

Lord Warner Portrait Lord Warner (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords—

Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

When I have finished my sentence, I will give way. I hope that I have made the basic reasons clear. Now that I have finished my sentence, I will delay sitting down in order to respond to the noble Lord opposite.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Warner Portrait Lord Warner
- Hansard - -

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that, under the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the family court would have to have regard to the Human Rights Act in forming its judgment?

Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I accept that the family court would have to have regard to the considerations which are set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The difference between that amendment and ours is that ours sets out a very clear way in which the convention issues would have to be considered by the court rather than what amounts to verifying that a process has been followed. On the one hand, we have a process-driven amendment; on the other, we have a legal framework. I will happily give way to the noble Baroness.