Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)

Absolutely not. Indeed, the way the Bill is drafted makes it absolutely clear that the independent advocate is there to assist in the process of obtaining the consents and making sure that the person, as they go through that process, understands the whole process. The people to whom the amendment seeks to provide the assistance of an independent advocate are defined specifically as people with a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act or people, as I have gone through already, with particular difficulties understanding, communicating or using or weighing that information. I will pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, raised: if someone has a difficulty in understanding or retaining information, it cannot be envisaged that they would have a firm and settled view. I broadly share that view—but remember that the independent advocate comes right at the beginning of the process. If there are question marks in people’s minds, people should have an independent advocate. It may very well be that, if someone cannot understand relevant information, they cannot possibly have a clear and settled view. I do not think that they should be deprived of somebody to help them through the process right from beginning. That is why the range is there—because it takes place right from the beginning. I also express gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for broadly supporting the approach that we have taken on the words “independent advocate”. I will go through the particular changes. First, in her Amendment 168, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, states that everybody should have an independent advocate right from the start. No, I do not think that that is right. An independent advocate should be restricted to those who are qualifying persons, because that is what the role is trying to deal with. Amendment 300 says there should be an advocate for disabled people. That is also reflected in Amendment 553B, which refers to anybody with a disability under the Equality Act. Again, I say no. The purpose of the independent advocate is to help somebody who has an understanding difficulty or a mental health problem. We have therefore restricted entitlement to an independent advocate to the specific group of people who have an understanding difficulty. I was also struck by the point made by the Minister that very many people who are terminally ill—for example, with cancer—would fall within the category of “a disabled person”. It is not intended that everybody who qualifies needs an independent advocate. I have dealt with the amendments on the purpose of the independent advocates. I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on what the role will be, including in relation to the word “or”. A point was made about consulting bodies—I cannot remember who made it; perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—and that we should consult before making regulations under my Amendment 549(2)(b). Section 55 gives the Minister power to consult with anybody he or she thinks appropriate, and that is probably okay in relation to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, proposed an amendment that would require that no independent advocate could deal with more than 10 cases in a year. I do not see that that is a sensible or necessary provision. Many people who are qualified as independent advocates will be doing this full-time. I do not see why the number should be restricted to 10. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested that the regulations should be subject to an affirmative resolution. I agree. My Amendment 862A does that. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, spoke to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who we are very happy to see in his place. We had had bad news that he was not available before 6 pm, so we are very glad to see him now. His amendments were ably advocated for by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I am against the proposal that he is making. The proposal, as I understand it, is that where the registered medical practitioner says that they are not willing to conduct this primary discussion—obviously, the main reason would be because they were against it—we should set up a group of neutral advisers for this specific group, to which you have to be referred for the purpose of getting another Clause 5 conversation. Noble Lords will recall that the Clause 5 conversation has to be conducted in a way that gives rise to all of the options. The preliminary discussion—the explanation to the person—must not be conducted in isolation, referring only to assisted dying, but must refer to all the options, the prognosis and the treatment. What is being proposed, as I understand it, is that a system of neutral advisers should be set up for when somebody refuses to conduct that consultation so that the person is not sent to somebody who might be biased. Remember, this is taking the person from somebody who refuses to do the preliminary discussion to somebody else. I understand the point, but that seems both unnecessary and inappropriate.