Mental Capacity Bill, 2nd reading. 10th January 2005

My Lords, back in the 1960s, when I was a university student, I worked one summer in a Barnardo's home. It was a home for severely disabled children: they were disabled mentally and they were disabled physically. It was run by a husband and wife team who in my eyes seemed to be saints. They were gentle, compassionate people who dedicated their lives to the children in their care. I have never forgotten them. Their sheer goodness and humanity influenced me deeply.

There are, as we all know, similarly saintly people working with and caring for the most vulnerable people in our society 40 years later, now that we are in the 21st century. I meet those people in hospices, in care homes, in psycho-geriatric wards and of course I meet them in all those parents, grandparents and carers at home who do so much for those who are very vulnerable and whom they love.

What this Bill does - I believe with the noblest of motives - is to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are dependent not solely on the compassion and care of others for their own well-being, no matter how saintly and dedicated those carers might be. What it does, as a Bill, is to proclaim very loudly and clearly that all people, especially the most vulnerable, have absolute worth and value in their own right. This Bill, I believe, in its own way marks a significant moment in our national history and self-understanding - what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to in his opening speech as a cultural shift. It is based on the fundamental premise that all human beings matter - and matter absolutely.

I welcome this Bill, therefore, very warmly. It is about the dignity and potential of all people - especially and particularly those who could be most at risk from the unscrupulous, the downright wicked or those who take a perverse delight in exercising arbitrary power over other people.

As we all know, there has been some confusion about whether or not this particular Bill might allow what has been dubbed "euthanasia by the back door". It has been suggested that that could be achieved through the use of advance directives or through the exercise of power by those given lasting power of attorney. I understand fully the concern of those who want, as I do - I repeat "as I do" - to ensure that neither of those possibilities could come into being. For my own part I believe that Clause 58 would prevent such things happening, and I am aware of, and very grateful for, the letter written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff. However, for the complete avoidance of doubt, and on the basis that it is always better to say things twice in the hope that you might be heard if not the first time at least the second time, may I ask the Minister whether she will give the House the assurance that the text of this Bill cannot, in law, be used to introduce euthanasia into our society either by commission or by omission?

There has also been some concern expressed about the research aspects of the Bill. Using vulnerable people, or indeed anyone, as means to an end is obviously not ethically acceptable - even where that end is believed to be good. I recognise that a number of disability groups welcome the research potential of this Bill, but nevertheless I remain uneasy. Can the Minister assure the House that the complex ethical issues which exist inside this whole area of medical research will be subject to the most careful scrutiny before we go much further?

I know that hospitals and trusts have ethics committees but, from some of the concerns expressed to me, while people usually have confidence in the ways such committees scrutinise research protocols, they sometimes have less confidence in the capacity of those committees to deal with the broader ethical issues that they might face if the Bill became law. For example, could it be ensured that ethics committees should have at least one member who has studied philosophy and ethics at least at first degree level? I think that would help.

I have raised two questions but I want to end this brief speech on a note of appreciation. Many of us - the Church of England and all the other Churches - have been invited to give comment and to offer a critique. We have been asked to do so on a number of occasions long before the Bill reached this House. The sheer courtesy and thoughtful care with which those talks with the Churches and with user groups have taken place has been deeply appreciated and marks, I hope, a way of bringing draft legislation to this House which might well be a useful and creative model for the future.

I inadequately express my thanks to all those who have spent so many years trying to get this measure right. I warmly welcome it as a sign that all people matter in our society, and matter absolutely.