I am very glad to answer the noble Lord’s two questions. To the first, there is a very straightforward answer: I do not anticipate any difficulty whatever. The medical profession will prioritise like the rest of us when needs must. So far as the chief coroner’s role is concerned, I anticipate the chief coroner receiving not only the independent expert’s report but possibly other representations and determining whether an inquest should take place in a particular case. I anticipate that there would be very few cases anyway if the recipe that I have proposed was brought into effect and I doubt that there would have to any inquest in those cases. However, we have to keep open the possibility of an inquest, and it is much tidier to have the chief coroner decide whether there should be an inquest than, for example, to have judicial review proceedings arising as a result of the complaints of affected persons. I think that these are both very quick routes to deal with simple issues that might arise.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Carlile of Berriew
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 7 November 2014.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Assisted Dying Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
756 c1903 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 05:49:30 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-07/14110775000269
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-07/14110775000269
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-07/14110775000269