---

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

My Lords, I will be extremely brief. Rather than speak to my own Amendment 229, I simply suggest to the Committee that the bulk of the evidence we heard in the Select Committee suggests that the amendments that have been put forward and debated in this group are extremely important and essential. I will quote very briefly from the Select Committee’s report before sitting down. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said that every applicant should be

“holistically assessed at the stage of preliminary discussion, including for mental health need”.

Dr Luke Geoghegan, of the British Association of Social Workers, took the view that

“all applicants should have a safeguarding assessment”.

The British Geriatrics Society recommended in its evidence to us

“a requirement for all people requesting an assisted death to undergo a holistic assessment of needs”.

The next group of witnesses that produced a similar view was Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, which called for a multidisciplinary assessment framework.

I could go on, but I recommend to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he replies to the debate, to take these points on. A central question in this debate, posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has been: are the protections in the Bill better than the protections we have at the moment? I suggest to the Committee that that is not the question. The question is not, are the protections better than those we have at the moment, but are they as good as they could be? The answer in many cases is that they are not, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord takes these points on board when he replies to the debate.