Lord Empey
Main Page: Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Baroness Coffey (Con)
On the point the noble Baroness made about funding, unfortunately the Minister has now communicated that it will not happen until autumn 2026, which any former Minister knows means 24 December.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I wonder whether the proposer of these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, can tell us whether he has any indication from the relevant royal colleges that their members would be available for this service. The idea is that you will have senior clinicians on a 24-hour basis, 365 days per year. I wish our facilities had sufficient capacity, but it is nonsense; there is not the remotest possibility of the National Health Service and the relevant clinicians being available.
If I am wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has an indication from them that their members will be available, the sooner we get that information here the better—but I just cannot see it. We cannot even deal with what we have at the moment, never mind adding to the burden.
On another issue, I must say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that it is 12.10 pm. By the time we finish this group, we will be at the lunch break. I have to say to him, as I said last week, that if we go on at the rate we are going, he is partly responsible. He needs to bring forward meaningful amendments, so that we can see the colour of his money now and not in weeks to come.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We are debating other people’s amendments at the moment. This debate has ranged pretty far and wide. These are not my amendments; they raise three particular issues. First, should there be a new organisation, an assisted dying help service? Secondly, should we ensure a different and more expeditious series of arrangements than that put in my Bill? Thirdly, should the commissioner act only as a regulator? Those are the three essential parts. I think there is merit in much of what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has said, but I am not in favour of an assisted dying help service. Further, my Bill sets out very detailed provisions for safeguards that are longer and less flexible than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. As for the commissioner being solely a regulator, I am not in favour of that. I think we need a regulator and the CQC has been suggested in relation to that. That seems quite sensible. I simply say that we have ranged so far and wide that I am slightly miffed at the idea expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that I am detaining people from their lunch because we have had this long debate.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I have to say that that was not my intention—the noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. I raised the point merely to indicate the length of time that this is taking and that a lot of the proposals and amendments on the Marshalled List could be addressed if we had amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, which he indicated in an email last week would be forthcoming. They are not here.
Lord Harper (Con)
I think that the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has put down these amendments is that it is not clear, from what the Government have said or what the Bill says, where this service is supposed to be—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is nodding at that. If the sponsor of the Bill had set out in the Bill more detail about how it would work and where it would sit, if there had been a proper process, many of the amendments from people with concerns would need to have been tabled and we would be moving faster. It is because of that gap and that failure, which is the sponsor’s responsibility, that this is taking a long time. It is necessary scrutiny to get the Bill right. That is what the public would expect of us.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there are some amendments in a later group—the 50th group—on this subject of approved substances and their regulation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, pointed out, if you buy a packet of aspirin, you get a sheet that gives you the different risk levels. What I would like to know from the Government is: what will be done to ascertain how this list of approved substances is compiled? We know from examples given earlier today that, sometimes, things go wrong. When you go through any medical procedure, you are always asked to sign a piece of paper asking whether you consent: quite often, you are practically on the slab when you are asked to sign it.
The point I am getting at is: have we done any homework on what these substances should be? Have we analysed internationally how they have interacted in circumstances where assisted suicide is being promoted or is available? Do we have any of that information? We know, as has been mentioned, of circumstances in which executions have been carried out in certain American states, and even there, where multiple substances have been used with one purpose, sometimes it does not work out. We know that that is the case, and I cannot think of anything worse if we go down this track.
Although the promoter of the Bill has made his position clear, this is a matter for the Government as well. The Government have to tell us whether they have done any meaningful research. What is the legal framework? How will these substances be handled, bearing in mind that they will be going all over the country? They will not be going just to a single place. Pharmacies throughout the hospital system are very pressurised environments. Staff will have to be retrained. Given the nature of these substances, special procedures will have to be employed in practically every pharmacy in the United Kingdom where they will be required; I should say that, by “pharmacy”, I mean a hospital pharmacy.
I fear that this is another example of something that is half-baked; it is not worked out, researched or available. We have blank spaces around these lethal substances, and we are asking: what are they? All the questions—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. In group 50, we will deal with the process of the selection, approval and regulation of substances. In this group, we are dealing with making sure that the patient is properly informed before they make the decision. Many of the questions that the noble Lord raises about how we are going to choose the substances are perfectly valid, but I suggest that we deal with them under group 50.
Lord Empey (UUP)
As I said when I opened my remarks, I have amendments in group 50 for that purpose, but there is an inextricable link between having knowledge about these substances and having informed consent, so we cannot compartmentalise it as easily as that. The people who are overseeing the consent of the person must also have that knowledge. The risk factors have to be made available to the patient: that is my point. Because there has not been sufficient research done on these matters, I am not convinced at this stage that the information being provided to the patient is accurate. How can it be if the research has not been done?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is about the process of information giving. The lead amendment, Amendment 39A, is about the person having an understanding.
In any process of giving information, there is no point just giving the information: broadcasting it, if you like. You have to check that the person has understood it. Usually, in clinical practice, that is done by asking the patient, “Can you tell me what you have understood from what I have just told you?” That allows the patient to repeat back. Sometimes, you find that they have not understood it at all. Sometimes, you find that they have over-understood and brought in other sources of information, and you can then deal with misinformation that comes in and that might be relevant to them. That process is behind consent. The signing of a consent form is simply verification that the process of handing over and receiving information has happened. It is not the signature that matters, it is the process.
I will deal very briefly with something that came up before lunch—