Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)

My noble friend is absolutely right; on that point they do change the policy intention. I am grateful. I would welcome the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on that. Finally, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Howe, I have been asked on his behalf to formally speak on his Amendments 301A and 305A. In speaking to those amendments, I want to highlight the threshold which is set for determining whether an individual is in England and Wales at the time of the first assessment. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to pick up this point. As the Bill is drafted, the question as to whether somebody is ordinarily resident in England and Wales rests on what is called the “opinion of the coordinating doctor”. My concern is that an opinion without any further evidential requirement may be too low a bar, particularly given the need to guard against the risk of what has been called death tourism. In other parts of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord has used the word “satisfied”, and I think we would agree that that entails a higher evidential bar than merely “opinion”—indeed, that is also higher than “believes” or “reasonably believes”. “Satisfied” is a higher standard. When the noble and learned Lord replies, can he use that opportunity to explain why the test here is only “opinion” and not “satisfied”, as that test is used in other parts of the Bill?