Lord Rooker
Main Page: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)
Lord Deben (Con)
I am perfectly happy to accept the intervention, but I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, did not accept any intervention, as he might have found it difficult to answer the questions that we are asking.
The point that I am making is very simple and it remains: we have to make a decision always among priorities. The problem with this decision—and it is why this should have been a government Bill and not a Private Member’s Bill—is that, as a Private Member’s Bill, it is a single-issue Bill. It is promoted by people who want this to be decided irrespective of its effect on everything else that happens. That it is not acceptable, it seems to me, for the Government. The purpose of my comment is that it is not about how much the proponents think it will cost; it is about the effect of this over the rest of the National Health Service. If the Bill is passed, where is it going to fit? The Government really cannot get up and say that we are entirely independent. They have to tell us, if this Bill is passed, where they see it sitting, because the proponents of the Bill have not expressed this. What is the real cost; that is, not the sum of money, but the effect of it on the rest of the service provided? They also have to tell us how it will impact the essential demands that the public have for so many other things.
We can argue about what the public think about this Bill—I am pretty sure that they think about this Bill rather differently from what it actually is—but we have to recognise that the public also have very strong views about what money should be spent in other areas. The Government have to tell us, from their point of view, how much it will cost, what the effect will be on the other services provided, where it will sit if it is passed, and how they will overcome the problem that many of those who may be asked to support it have said that they will not. Those are things for the Government to tell us and, so far, they have been unable to put answers to any of those questions, which is the second reason—the other is the point that the noble Lord has just made about amendments—why we have constantly to go on arguing, in detail, about this Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will give a specific example. On 8 January, at col. 1416, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made a short speech, which consisted of about six specific questions. One of them was about the interaction of the health service and the Bill. Later that evening, I said to my noble and learned friend in intervention that he should come back within the next 10 days and answer those questions. The fact that he has refused to do so, and the suspicion being he has no intention of doing so, is why the amendments will keep being raised. That is basically the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was making: there is a suspicion that they will not be answered. If we could do that, we could make more progress anyway because of the nature of the amendments that have been put down.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Deben, that greater clarity, both from the promoter of the Bill and from the Front Bench, would assist the Committee in making sure its mind could be made up on these delicate issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, used to be my boss when I was a junior journalist at the BBC; I owe him a great deal. In framing this amendment, he has shown that a fine line, by insisting on speed and precision, can show us just what expedited delivery of a public service can achieve. If only the skill with which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has ensured that the ratchet moves forward at speed in this legislation had been applied, for example, to our planning system, or to any of the other areas where government is laggard and failing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pointed out, if the same degree of precision had been applied to the operation of our courts and tribunals, we would not need to be contemplating the end of trial by jury.
However, in putting forward this proposition, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is guilty of falling prey to two fallacies. The first is the Gadarene swine fallacy: the idea that, because so many are moving in one direction, we must follow expeditiously. He cited the fact that Jersey has voted for a form of assisted dying, and we are aware the debates are carrying on in Scotland and Wales. I shall not go into the devolutionary and union ramifications of those debates here—we will return to those later; they are critically important. But, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the arc of history does not bend in any one particular direction, and certainly not in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, wishes to see it bend. We have been reminded this week that Denmark can say no to being told what to do by others, not just in geopolitics but in other areas as well. What we can learn from Denmark, and indeed from the French Senate, is that the consideration of the detail of legislation matters.
The other fallacy which was inherent in his speech is the Robespierre fallacy: the belief that one can discern and interpret the general will and then push in a particular direction. As we have heard on the Floor of this House, opinion polling on the question of assisted dying gives us almost the conclusions that we might want to have. I was struck by the opinion polling cited in the British Medical Journal, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which pointed out that the majority of those asked, when they were compelled to share what they thought assisted dying meant, thought that it either meant the withdrawal of existing treatment at a particular point, at the request of the patient, or improved palliative care. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, cited other opinion polling as well, but the critical thing is that opinion polling points in different directions. It causes me concern. But it is the purpose of this House and the purpose of legislators here not to attempt to discern the general will and to enact it, but to look at specific legislation and to decide whether it is fit for purpose.
That takes me to another point about the assisted dying help service: a question for the promoter of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for the promoter of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and for the Front Bench. It is undoubtedly the case that, if the amendment standing in his name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were agreed, the process would accelerate, relative to that which is contained within the Bill. Yet, at the same time, it is the case that a new service is being set up, which, as a number of colleagues here have pointed out, might draw resources away from other aspects of the NHS. How is it possible that a service that is set up explicitly to accelerate, to be a concierge service in that way, will also attract, be staffed and operate in a way which ensures that at every point, objective, neutral, balanced advice is offered? Is it not in the very nature of this service that those staffing it—and one has to ask who would volunteer or would be paid for that role—would become engineers of a particular purpose? Is it not the case that those who would move towards recruitment in this area would be people who would be motivated I am sure from the best and most idealistic of motives, but those who would want to advance the path to death and accelerate suicide rather than incur reflection?
That takes me to a question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who might say that this is an amendment from the Back Benches, not something that he has been party to and that we as the Committee might consider it overall. He might well say that he has his own timetable in this legislation to which he is attached, which he would like us to pay particular attention to as we reflect on the Bill. But the question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is: if he could, would he back the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick? Is he in sympathy with the desire to accelerate this process? It is not enough for him to say, “Look, I haven’t put this forward”. The key question is: if he is in sympathy, will he say so, and if not, why not? If he believes he is not in sympathy, is that because he thinks it is right that there should be appropriate, greater reflection, and that there is something momentous about this decision? Is it also right that he believes that this would mean a diversion of resources?