Contribution
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for advancing Amendments 70 and 78, which I drafted. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here last week when I thought they would be debated. I disagree with nothing that the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Sandhurst, said.
The purpose of Amendments 70 and 78 was to broaden the definition of “disease” to include “injuries”. It is completely illogical that people who are facing death within six months because of some untoward event, such as contracting an illness, being hit by a car or suffering an injury at work, should not be in the same position. One thinks about injuries at work, in particular: if inhalation of asbestos fibre, silica or cotton results in asbestosis, silicosis, byssinosis or mesothelioma, they would be covered by the legislation currently proposed. But inhalation of a poisonous gas at work, causing an injury that is likely to result in death within six months, would not be covered. There does not seem to be a logical distinction there.
The law also does not regard there being a distinction. The common law of negligence requires one not to harm someone else, whether by an injury or causing that person to contract an illness. That is particularly evident in the field that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, developed; namely, injury at work. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the common law of workplace negligence all require that the employer keeps the workplace safe and they make no distinction between whether the danger arises from a risk of injury, such as getting an arm mangled in a machine, or the risk of disease, by the inhalation of noxious particles causing lung disease. There is no logical distinction to me and it would be right for the Bill to extend the scope of “disease”—illness and disease are not defined in the Bill—to cover “illness” as well.
I turn to the main point that the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Sandhurst, developed. The risk, as the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Carlile, put in their explanatory statement and which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, developed, is that the dependants
“will probably lose their right under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 to sue the alleged tortfeasor said to have caused the disease, unless the Bill specifically provides otherwise (which currently it does not)”.
I agree with his legal analysis. It is likely that insurers will say, “No, the cause of death here was not the underlying mesothelioma. It was the fact that this person opted for an assisted death”.
The noble Lord developed the consequences for the family. I just want to add: what about the consequences for the injured person? Are they going to think to themselves, “Well, if I opt for an assisted death, I’m going to deprive my family of extensive damages that they will not enjoy”? Of course there will be considerable pressure on that person to say, “I’m going to put up with the suffering as long as I can until I die to make sure that my family get the money”. I do not want to be rude to insurance companies, but they have to do what they can to safeguard their assets and avoid paying out what they do not need to pay out; they will fight these cases. Therefore, it seems important that the Bill, to quote those words, “specifically provides otherwise”, which it does not currently.
I am very grateful for the interview that I had with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to discuss these matters a week or so ago. I had mistakenly thought that the power of my oratory was such that my noble friend was convinced by my argument, but he was not. It is quite clear from his Amendment 718C, which he has tabled today, that he does not accept that the Bill should provide a measure that would protect the victim in the circumstances that we are discussing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and I tabled Amendment 717, which is obviously not before the Committee today, which seeks to redress this by requiring that the coroner records that the cause of death was the underlying disease, while noting that the death was one by assisted dying. I do not know whether that would go far enough to protect these victims from the insurers who claim that the death was not caused by the underlying disease, but it goes a bit further than the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Carlile. In my view, it is essential that the Bill protects against the danger that I have outlined.