Under current law if you accompany a terminally ill relative to a clinic, knowing they are going there to be assisted in ending their own life, you are committing a crime. The Suicide Act 1961, now almost half a century old, makes this clear when it says that it is unlawful to “aid, abet, counsel or procure” the suicide of another person.

In such cases, the relatives who accompany a loved one abroad can be reported to the police by people who have an objection to suicide. The police are then duty bound to investigate, which clearly causes a great deal of distress and upset to the bereaved family members. The police often conclude that a crime has indeed been committed but the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to prosecute, largely on compassionate grounds. Cases can then be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has final discretion as to whether a prosecution should be brought. The DPP should not have to go through this litigation.

The current DPP and his predecessor have not sought prosecutions, citing insufficient public interest in doing so. More than 100 people have now travelled abroad to die and, when these cases have been investigated, the conclusion has always been the same. One wonders, if these cases came to court, whether a jury would convict. The case of the young rugby player Dan James last year bears this out. His parents were interviewed by the police and were clearly extremely distressed. In the public interest, the case went no farther.

But they have committed a crime. For some, the risk that their partner or loved may be prosecuted is simply too much. They go alone. They go early. And they die in the hands of strangers.

This is the current law. It only works because of the good sense of the DPP. Under the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently making its way through the Lords, the Government is proposing to tidy up the law on assisted suicide. But its proposals do not address the inconsistency between the law and current prosecuting policy. Nor do they protect the vulnerable.

This is not the time for full-scale review of suicide law. It is not the time to decide whether it should be made legal in the UK to end one's own life in this way. This important debate needs proper time and full engagement from both the public and Parliamentarians. But the law as it stands should reflect current practice and ethical standards. Nobody who has any sensitivity, who understands what families must be going through, wants to see prosecutions in these cases. They understand that clarity is needed. But they also want to see safeguards in the law to ensure that only those at the end of life are contemplating this decision and that it is their choice, not anyone else's.

The amendment I am tabling to the Coroners and Justice Bill does not make it an easier for people to go to Switzerland to die in a Dignitas clinic. They can already do this. Rather, it is making sure that the law reflects the sensible position adopted to date by the courts and the DPP, while protecting people from abuse.

My amendment is designed to give protection to people who accompany their loved ones to a clinic abroad and then give support in the last moments of life. It makes clear that these supporting acts should take place solely or principally for the purpose of enabling or assisting a person to travel to a country or territory in which assisted dying is lawful. I have also included the essential safeguard that two medical practitioners, who are independent of each other, must have certified that the individual is terminally ill and that they have the capacity to make this decision to end their life. The individual must also have made the declaration in writing that they wish to end their life in this way, in front of an independent witness who is neither a close friend, relative nor a carer and is unlikely to benefit in any way from the death.

This amendment does not affect our approach to palliative care. People should be able to access high-quality end-of-life care. On the whole, those travelling abroad to die are not doing so because of a failure of modern medicine to alleviate their physical suffering. They are doing so because they want to take understandable control over the time and manner of their own deaths. Better palliative care is not going to prevent increasing numbers of people wanting to go abroad to die. There is no hiding from this fact.

I am motivated by a situation in which the law does not work. Debbie Purdy's case is in the House of Lords this week where she is seeking clarity on this very point. It is wrong that she should be forced into doing this to protect her husband. The law should be clear for her and everyone else in this position.

Parliament must act. We need the law to reflect our values and to reflect real situations. No one, no matter how wise, should decide whether to enforce criminal law. We all know why the DPP has made his judgment in these cases - because no one has the stomach to prosecute people under the current law. That is why it must change. If this amendment is passed it should be called the Purdy Amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton was Lord Chancellor, 2003-07

Times Recommends

• Resist urge to throw voters red meat
• Slay sacred cows and be candid
• We cannot let these 100 deaths deflect us