Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I think that the noble Baroness will be under no illusion: I am personally against the Bill, because I do not believe in it. But if there is a Bill, we have to have any protection in it—that is completely different. Therefore, in the context of the suggestion that, because I am personally opposed to it, there should be no protections, I believe that, if the Bill were to pass, we should have the proper protections for people who have faith.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, I rise not least because it is very important for us to take a moment to understand the importance of this debate—in particular, to address the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I too have sat through all the days in Committee, and noble Lords will know that I have spoken rarely, but my conclusion is different from that of the noble Lord, because there is a huge benefit in listening to all sides of this debate. I have been moved by the speeches of my noble friends who have supported the Bill and by the speeches of those who have not.
The essence of this issue, in relation to opting in, is very important. I want to agree with what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, in relation to the extraordinary contribution made by those who are specialists in this area, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. What this House has been marvellous about is finding agreement. We are all agreed, it seems to me—including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton—that this has to be an opt-in and not an opt-out. What we are debating is how we make sure that that to which we all aspire is actually delivered in the Bill.