Lord Falconer - Former UK Secretary of State for Justice HARDtalk

growing very slowly. Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi, here on the BBC. Here at

Westminster, the House of Lords is debating this week the highly

controversial Assisted Dying Bill. The bill proposes that anyone in

England and Wales, with a terminal illness, who is judged by two

doctors to have less than six months to live, and who is mentally

competent, can be given life ending medication, that they must

administer themselves. My guest today is the Labour Peer and former

attorney general under Tony Blair, Charlie Falconer, who has introduced

the bill. How does he defended against critics who believe it is

plain wrong and dangerous? `` defend it.

Lord Falconer, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. How far do you have any

doubts about introducing a bill that has attracted so much formidable

opposition? And so much support as well. I am sure it is the right

thing to do. And Parliament at last is going to get the opportunity to

debate it next Friday. Don't have any even little inklings of doubt?

It's something I have thought about over maybe eight or nine years. It

has been debated in short bursts in Parliament before, but it has always

been derailed in the past. So there has been a real opportunity, not

just for me to think about it, but also to discuss it with other

people, people who are going through the last stages of their lives.

Doctors who have treated them, loved ones who have been with them. And so

it is something that I have spent time on, and thought a great deal

about. Why have you spent so much time, the best part of a decade on

this? It is almost like a personal mission for you. Initially because I

myself was involved in various issues in relation to it. But I

don't want to talk about the details of those. Someone in your family?

Yes. But once I then became involved in it, I had spent time looking into

it, I had chaired a commission that looked into the issue. I discussed

it with others. So I have worked on the issue over a long period of time

because it is something I do feel passionately about. I appreciate you

don't want to talk about the personal motivation behind this, but

nevertheless there is a personal motivation though, even if you don't

wish to talk about it. Do you not accept that there may be different

personal motivations for other people? That is why it has been

really important, from my point of view, to look at all of the evidence

that is available. Because there is evidence from doctors, people who

are terminally ill, those who love those that are terminally ill, and

it is important to get everyone's view in relation to it, before

coming to a conclusion. The British Medical Association, that by and

large represents all family doctors in the United Kingdom, is opposed to

all forms of assisted dying. Does that not alone give you cause for

doubt, that doctors, on the frontline, are saying we are against

this? The BMA, that's the British Medical Association, doesn't have

specific figures as to how many doctors are against. They, like me,

have spoken to lots and lots of doctors. And my experience of

doctors is some are very much in favour of assisted dying. Some are

very, very much against. But the vast majority just want clarity, in

relation to the situation. But you are coming, you are going on one

side of medical opinion, that backs your view, and it seems like you're

almost ignoring the medical opinion that disagrees with you. I'm not

ignoring it. I'm taking into account, but ultimately, Parliament

has to make a decision in relation to this, and what Parliament does,

it is a political body. With a small p, this is not a party political

issue. It's got to balance often conflicting interests. Parliament

has now got to address the issue, and make a decision. And I am clear

that I think, with stringent safeguards, the right thing to

happen is that there should be the option of an assisted death, where

you are terminally ill. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has come out recently

saying that it does support assisted dying. He is a highly revered figure

internationally and in this own native south Africa. `` his own

native South Africa. But nevertheless this is what he also

said. He said that the money used on treatment of the elderly, should be

instead spent on those who are at the beginning, or at the full flow

of their life. That is a danger, isn't it? That your bill breaches a

principle of the sanctity of life, and it could become a slippery slope

whereby you might see care for the elderly withdrawn, just as Desmond

Tutu seems to be suggesting there. I am not in favour of care for the

elderly being withdrawn or reduced. And indeed, in relation to the field

that we are talking about, I would very much like to see palliative

care increased. I think it is interesting that in those places

where an assisted dying law has been introduced, for example like Oregon,

in addition to that assisted dying law, there has also been increased

expenditure on palliative care. You mentioned Oracle in

having a law like this, and having a debate like this, focuses people 's

attention on how society treats people who are dying. You mentioned

Oregon in the United States which introduced its assisted suicide bill

in the late 1990s. This is what happened in 2010. Two cancer

sufferers, Barbara Wagner and Randy Straub, who were relying on social

health programmes, Medicaid, for their care, were told the state

would not fund any more treatment, but would pay for the drugs to end

their lives there and then. It would have cost them $4000 to get the

treatment, and $50 to get the life`ending medicine. That is a

danger, isn't it? That is a danger. But it is not representative of how

the Oregon law works. We have spoken recently to the person who is in

charge of hospice movement in Oregon, she says initially they were

opposed to it, but as it has worked out in the late '90s, when it was

introduced, they are now very strongly in favour of it. But that

was 2010. And the medical official involved said it is our duty to set

out to citizens in Oregon their legal rights. And assisted suicide

is a legal right for them. And that is the kind of danger that people

worry about. Two cancer sufferers, being put under that kind of

pressure. Yeah, well my law would not people under that pressure.

Before you are entitled to an assisted death under my proposed

law, two doctors have to be satisfied that you have the capacity

to make the decision. That it is your firm decision that that is what

you want to do. And that you are aware of what all the palliative

care options are. Baroness Hollins, former president of the Royal

College of Psychiatrists, said that if we ever had an assisted suicide

law it would have to be limited to people who are mentally capable, but

as a psychiatrist, I know how difficult assessing mental capacity

can be. She asked how robust is this idea of settled intent that you have

just raised? That is why you need two doctors. People change their

minds though. Will that is why it has to be settled intention. The

doctors will see whether this is something you are firmly settled on,

or if it is something which might change, if for example your

treatment has changed, or of conditions in your care are changed.

That is why by law it is very important that the patient before a

decision is made knows all the options that are available to him or

her. But the factor of the matter is that they may feel under pressure.

In a letter to The Times newspaper this week, parliamentarians

including the former member David Blunkett cited that Washington State

Department's annual health report in 2013 on its debt and dignity act

revealed that 61% of those who receive lethal drugs in Washington

last year reported feeling a burden on family, friends, and caregivers.

So people 's minds aren't really settled at a very difficult time of

their lives like that. Those figures involved people ticking a number of

boxes. The one overwhelmingly in Washington was that they wanted the

freedom, the autonomy to make the choice. And very many people won't

take this choice. But the number of people who describe, who don't want

to go on fighting for those last few days or months, who are absolutely

clear that is what they want to do, it is those people that my bill is

aimed to help. Now I need to put in safeguards to make sure that it

doesn't put pressure on anybody. But that is the point. The concerns are

that your safeguards can never be robust enough. It cannot be better

in the current situation, where the only investigation which takes place

takes place after a person has died. Let me tell you one big obstacle

that is also cited, and why your safeguards are not there. You say

you need two doctors to decide just what the situation is of a

particular patient. Baroness Finlay, professor of palliative medicine at

Cardiff University in Wales, says with a shiver I think of a patient

desperate for assisted dying, 22 years ago, his surgeon, his cancer

specialist, his family doctor, and I, all thought he would be dead

within three months time. He is alive today, and living well. We

have to make decisions all the time in society, on the basis of that

people are ill and may be dying. If we cannot rely on professional

judgements, then no judgement will ever be made about the treatment of

people. On the idea... What do you say to him though? Four Medical

experts said he had three months to live, and he is still alive 22 years

later. Doctors are not all knowing. Of course not. But the question for

society is, do we approached the treatment of the terminally ill on

the basis that you can never rely on diagnosis? Of course not, we have to

do the best we can on the basis of the diagnosis we get. Of course

doctors do that every day. But here you are saying that two doctors can

decide if a patient is six months away from dying, and my question to

you is simply this. How do you know when six months or less is exactly

that? It is for doctors to decide. But they can get it wrong. They can.

So what happens then? People are dying prematurely.

The choice surely is if diagnosis can be wrong, do you say that we

cannot trust the doctor at all, or do you say that you are best to rely

upon professional judgement? And my view is that you take the view that

you will rely on professional judgement. Of course you are right

that from time to time, doctors, lawyers, courts, whichever tribunal

you use, any group of people used to decide anything, may get it wrong.

But the question is, because of the risk of getting it wrong, do you say

OK, no change in the law? And I am clear, in my view, that the right

thing to do is put in the best safeguards you can, and give people

this right. There is also another concern, which has been voiced by

prominent disability campaigners in June this year, like the Paralympian

champion Tanni Grey`Thompson. And she amongst others says that

campaign to legalise assisted suicide reinforces deep`seated

beliefs that the lives of the sick and disabled are not worth as much

as other people's, that if you are disabled or terminally ill, it is

not worth being alive. What do you say to people like her? I disagree

with that. Interestingly enough, disabled people reflect society as a

whole. Polling over a decade have revealed that the number of people

who support a change in the law along the lines that I'm suggesting

in the United Kingdom is about between 70 and 80%. In relation to

the disabled, the number who support it is about 79%, which is in line

with society as a whole. So would you like a referendum, then, if you

think there so much support? Because we have a Parliamentary system in

the UK, occasionally we have referendums. But are you suggesting

that since you think there is such strong public opinion for your

proposal, that there should be a referendum for it? No, I am making a

different point, which is that some disabled people, like some

able`bodied people, oppose my bill. But I don't think there could be any

suggestion that the effect of my bill in any way undervalues or

devalues the lives of people who are disabled. What it is doing is giving

an option to people who are dying. That option will be available to

people who are able`bodied as much as the disabled. If you look at

examples abroad, we've already discussed Oregon, but also the

Netherlands, where there is assisted dying, as well as euthanasia, which

I appreciate is different from assisted suicide. That is the

intentional taking of life at a patient's request or for a merciful

motive. But a prominent pro`euthanasia campaigner said in

July in 2014, in the British press, don't go there. Once the genie is

out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again. Euthanasia

is on the way to becoming a default mode of dying for cancer patients.

And what he is referring to there, the genie that got out of the bottle

in the Netherlands, is euthanasia, which is one person killing another.

That was the law they started with, in the Netherlands, and expanded.

But he's saying to Britain, just heed our warnings. Don't go down

that path. Well, read clearly what he said. He is talking about a

euthanasia law. Compare as well Oregon. It started with an assisted

dying bill, and has ended there. There has been no creep in relation

to that particular issue. And there is a real difference. Because what I

am talking about is not if you have unbearable suffering, whether you

are dying or not, you should be able to have somebody take your life.

What I'm talking about is how you die. And what the choice is that you

have, in the context of a final illness. And that is something very

different. But are you... Can I finish? That is something very

different from what is being referred to in the comments on the

Netherlands law. OK. On Oregon, something like 19 out of 100,000

deaths in the state of Oregon are assisted dying. So it is a minority.

It's a small number we are talking about here. Is it worth trying to

help this minority perhaps... You know, why change the rules for a

majority, just for a minority. That's the point. I agree, it is

very likely to be taken up only by a small group of people. But those

people who are experienced in looking after people who are

terminally ill, very many of them, not all of them, but very many of

them think this option should be there. And in particular in those

places where the option has been there. For example in relation to

Oregon. Why not just improve palliative care? I don't think...

They are not alternatives. I'm very much in favour of improving

palliative care. But I mean, why not... It is not either/or, why not

do both? Very quickly, Chris Wood had, suffering from motor neurone

disease and has very poor quality of life in some ways, he says that

doctors can't have said to him that if he wished to die at some stage in

the future, he could just refuse medical attention. What they said to

him as he could refuse food and water. He said if they wished to

starve himself to death medical assistance would not be given. That

is exactly why think there needs to be a change in the law. What doctors

are saying to people like Chris Woodhead, starve yourself to death

and diet dehydration. But is it not a case now, Lord Falconer, that

patients can refuse any and all medical treatment. They can. Why

change the law if they can refuse medical treatment, except in

alleviation. The cruelty of a death which involved starving himself to

death, which may take days, is one of the reasons why I think my option

should be available to people. Is there the case of anybody who has

allowed somebody to die, because they are terminally ill, actually

being put in prison for a? `` for it? Standing by and doing nothing is

not a crime. Giving somebody the means by which they kill themselves

is a crime, under section two of the suicide act, 1961, in England. And

the maximum sentence available for that, obviously not everybody gets

it, is 14 years in jail. Can you think of an example of somebody, a

family member or friend who has assisted terminally ill person to

die, who has faced a criminal punishment like that. Yes, there are

people like that. Because the current position is that even though

there is that law, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the chief

prosecutor in this country, is now saying well, if I think the person

is motivated by compassion, then I won't stick it. `` prosecute them.

What that means, is that if you are a non` medically trained person,

trying to help your loved one to die, that would be OK. But if you

are a doctor, it wouldn't be OK. So you've ended up in a situation where

we are licensing amateur assistance, or, if you are rich enough, you can

take your loved one to somewhere like Switzerland, where assisted

dying is OK. So for the rich or for those who want to rely on amateur

assistance, the law is OK. That is not a good place for the law to be.

It feels to me like a law that is broken. Isn't it the case though,

Lord Falconer, that both sides in this debate are right? You have the

current Archbishop of Canterbury opposed to this, saying the sword of

Damocles will be hanging over the terminally ill. George Carey saying

he does back it, because he doesn't want the church to, you know,

sanction in anguish and pain. So really, I mean, there is nobody was

particularly right. Don't you think? You have to make a judgement. If you

introduce a law that is properly safeguarded, does that lead to this

position, which, the Archbishop, current Archbishop of Canterbury in

the UK describes, of people feeling pressured, or does it lead to a

situation, as exists where we have seen operating for 17 years on

Oregon, where they don't feel pressured, and it is an option. And

for a very large number of people, the fact that the option is there

means they feel much more comfortable about living at the last

few days, last few months. `` living out. And will probably lead to

significant numbers of people living longer. OK, so this assisted dying

Bill gets a second reading in the House of Lords this week. And then

depending on what happens, it could then be referred to the committee

stage. And those peers who are opposed to it, have said they will

not vote against it so it can proceed to the committee stage where

it can be looked at line by line. And who knows when there will be a

free vote on the House of Commons, because there is an election next

year. But you are a former attorney general. Lord chancellor here and

then Secretary of Justice in the UK. You know how difficult it is to

get a law right in this kind of controversy, that we have been

discussing. Another difficult area is this issue of child abuse. We

have had in the UK, a famous entertainer like Timmy Sable, ``

found to have Jimmy Savile. In principle, do you support a law that

makes coverup illegal? Well, there are currently laws where it is a

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If you do anything to cover

up your own crime, that is bad. I support the change in the law which

says that if you know about the deals committing child abuse, then I

think in certain specified circumstances you should be obliged

to report that two authorities `` somebody else committing child

abuse. For example, where you have some role of authority in respect of

the person who might be the abuser or the abused. Bustillo of the

NSPCC, who is leading a review of historical child sex abuse

allegations here in the UK, said the reputation of an organisation should

never be put above the safety of a child, whether it is the national

health service, where abuse allegedly took place `` Bustillo.

Whether it is in Westminster, the political establishment, do you feel

it has been the case sometimes that the reputation of organisations has

been put above the interests of children? Well I hope not, but I

fear that it may well be correct. I think the example about the various

church organisations, where child sex abuse has taken place. And there

have been determined attempts, now stocked in almost every church's

case, to try and cover that up in order to protect the church. And

those seem to me to be examples of cases where the institution has been

put before the interests of children. And there is a dossier of

apparently on historic child sex abuse in Westminster, within the

political establishment, which had been gathered by the late

Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, and that dossier is apparently

missing, although we believe it was admitted to the Home Office, and the

Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons Home Affairs Select

Committee says more than 500 eventually relevant files are

missing on an industrial scale. And that is a huge surprise. Is it a

surprise to you as well? It really requires investigation, because of

serious allegations of child sex abuse were made, they should have

been properly investigated. And we need as far as we can to try and get

to the bottom of why they won't properly investigated, if that is

the position. In general terms, you could say that again it has brought

up this issue of how much trust the public can have in their

institutions, be at the political establishment, be at the health

service, or whatever. When you said in 2012 that the UK voted, or Tony

Blair, under whom you serve, led written into the Iraq War, that

perhaps that had kind of lead to a lack of trust amongst politicians

and the public `` Britain. Do you see this as feeding into that

debate? I do think that what we knew about the Iraq War has said a sense

of mistrust against politicians that comes from a wide range of

directions. It is absolutely clear that Tony Blair did not mislead the

British public. But there are repeated statements that he did, in

connection with a very contentious policy decision, namely to

participate in the invasion of Iraq Tom has had a real effect on trust

in this country, just in the politicians in the UK. Does it make

you want to operate more as a lawyer than as a politician? Well, it makes

me feel all the more that it is really important that we have

transparency and what politicians do. That is why the abuse enquiry

being set up is the right thing for the Home Secretary to have done.

Lord Falconer, thank you very much. Thank you.

Hello. Some disruptive thunderstorms for the start of the weekend, until