Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)

The noble Baroness can tell them that they will be safe. The question that she is raising in relation to such people is whether they will be overpressed to have an assisted death. My answer is that they will not, because they would have to satisfy a co-ordinating doctor, an independent doctor, a panel consisting of an ex-judge or a King’s Counsel, a psychiatrist and a social worker. In my view, this will provide him with protections. If the noble Baroness has the opportunity to speak to him, I very much hope she might tell him that there are those protections. I am very aware of the fact that in normal day-to-day interchanges with various parts of the systems, both health and legal, there are those who may make disabled people feel that their lives are not sufficiently valued. Of all the interactions with the health service, however, this is the one that will be most protected. And by most protected, I mean giving most safeguards to somebody in Tommy’s position. I should probably get on if we want to get away. I move to the question of the various conditions: this is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He is asking whether we might just exclude certain conditions under the Mental Health Act, such as autism and learning disabilities. Many of these people will not be able to get an assisted death because they will not satisfy the capacity test, or they will not satisfy the requirement for it to be their firm and “settled” view. I do not believe that they should be excluded altogether in relation to that because, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, such a wide range of conditions are covered by the Mental Health Act. Autism covers a very wide set of circumstances. Is it right that everybody who is autistic should not have that right? Learning disabilities includes people who are dyslexic, for example. If that right is available to people, should it not be available to people who are dyslexic? I am not in favour of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I turn to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who draws our attention to Clause 25. This deals with the position at the moment of providing the assistance—that is, when the drugs are provided. It says: “The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided … has capacity”. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised the question of what happens if he has doubts in relation to it. The answer is that he cannot be satisfied and that is the end of it. He has to be “satisfied”: that is the word used. I turn to whether Clause 22 should stand part. As noble Lords will know, I have proposed a new Clause 22, and there is considerable detail in relation to it. It would be wasting the Committee’s time for me to talk about the existing Clause 22 when there is already available a detailed Clause 22.