Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)

I realise that your Lordships wish to get on to the substance of the Bill, and the points I am about to raise are specifically on the Bill and will have an impact on the groupings we are about to debate. I notified the Chief Whip, the clerks and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of my intention to raise them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained in his letter this week that he recognises the concerns raised about independent advocates and that following discussions with the sponsor in the other place and their amendments, he has tabled changes. I am raising this now because of the sense of frustration that we are not getting answers to the amendments we are tabling in good faith. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer these questions, so that we can move with a bit more pace. I would like to probe how the changes the noble and learned Lord has suggested relate to what was agreed in the other place. The amendments in the Commons were understood to introduce independent advocates as a mandatory safeguard. This is an area that many of us are concerned about, reflecting the fact that the individuals in scope may have substantial difficulty understanding the process or communicating their wishes. Under the noble and learned Lord’s amendments, a person is treated as having an independent advocate, even if the advocate is not present or involved in the decision-making process. The amendments do not require an advocate to be present when the co-ordinating or independent doctor meets with the patient, nor when the panel considers the case. Advocacy is therefore satisfied by instruction alone rather than active participation. In addition, advocacy is made conditional on request. The preliminary discussion may proceed without an advocate, and a qualifying person may refuse one. Could the noble and learned Lord please explain whether he considers that this framework preserves the substance of the Commons concession, or whether he accepts that it represents a shift away from a mandatory safeguard towards a more discretionary model? In particular, how does he address the concern that people who qualify precisely because they struggle to understand are required, unaided, to decide whether to waive one of the Bill’s central protections at the very outset of the process?