Lords Chamber
10:06
10:07
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
>> My Lords, >> My Lords, I >> My Lords, I should >> My Lords, I should like >> My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement notify the House of the retirement with effect from yesterday of the noble Lord. The Earl Attlee, pursuant to section one of the House of Lords Reform Act, 2014, on behalf of the House. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much valued service to the House here. The Third Reading of the Rare Cancers Bill Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay.
10:07
Legislation: Rare Cancers Bill – third reading
-
Legislation: Rare Cancers Bill – third reading
My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill be. Now read a third time. Question is that. The question
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill be. Now read a third time. Question is that. The question
10:07
10:08
10:08
Bill do now pass.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Labour)
-
Bill do now pass.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Labour)
this bill do now pass. I would just like to say a few words about the genuine cross-party cooperation in getting this bill to this point. It has been this House at its best and the other place at its best. And I would like to say a few thanks. Firstly to Doctor Scott Arthur MP, who introduced the bill in the other place, supported very, very forcefully I think is the word by our dear friend Dame Siobhan McDonagh MP, who was so personally affected by the issues in this bill.
But I also want to say that the 55% of people who die of a rare cancer from the implementation of what is in this bill will make a difference to those people moving forward. And I met a young man the other day who had lost both parents to glioblastoma, and he was overjoyed that we were doing this. And I think that is something, as public servants, that we need to remember when we debate issues in this House, that the impact of what we do and what we say really does have an impact on people out there whose lives are affected by the laws we make.
I, I finally want to say that on a very positive note, we should remember dear friends who have passed today of this place, Baroness Margaret McDonagh and Baroness Tessa Jowell, who lost their lives to one of these rare cancers, both very formidable women, struck down in the prime of their time. And we shouldn't forget that. And also to thank all of those noble Lords who made very personal speeches in the Second Reading, telling their own stories about themselves, their families, their friends.
And I want to say personally, thank you to that. And thank you so much to everyone for their support in getting this bill to this point.
But I also want to say that the 55% of people who die of a rare cancer from the implementation of what is in this bill will make a difference to those people moving forward. And I met a young man the other day who had lost both parents to glioblastoma, and he was overjoyed that we were doing this. And I think that is something, as public servants, that we need to remember when we debate issues in this House, that the impact of what we do and what we say really does have an impact on people out there whose lives are affected by the laws we make.
I, I finally want to say that on a very positive note, we should remember dear friends who have passed today of this place, Baroness Margaret McDonagh and Baroness Tessa Jowell, who lost their lives to one of these rare cancers, both very formidable women, struck down in the prime of their time. And we shouldn't forget that. And also to thank all of those noble Lords who made very personal speeches in the Second Reading, telling their own stories about themselves, their families, their friends.
And I want to say personally, thank you to that. And thank you so much to everyone for their support in getting this bill to this point.
10:10
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
Thank you. Question is that this bill do now pass. >> My Lords, I spoke to this excellent little bill at Second Reading and said that I wanted to table an amendment to put the Royal Marsden Hospital front and centre Marsden Hospital front and centre in clause two, three B, which states ensure that a person to be known as a National Speciality Lead for rare cancers is appointed with a job description that includes promoting and facilitating research into rare cancers by providing advice in relation to the design and planning of research, and facilitating collaboration between interested persons.
My Lords, I did not table an amendment because the Bill would not then clear our parliamentary timetable. However, I want to press the noble Lady, the Minister on the essential need, in my opinion, to have the Royal Marsden involved in that section, either as a National Speciality Lead or the job description of that person must involve the master. The Royal Marsden is the greatest rare cancer specialist hospital in Europe and in the top four in the whole world. Since Second Reading on the 16th January, the Royal Marsden announced on the 10th of February a new £1 billion expansion of its world leading cancer hub, together with the Institute of Cancer Research, and this will be the largest cancer treatment and research facility anywhere in the world.
My Lords, it's just three miles away from this place, and if we want this bill to succeed, please, please, Minister, put the world's best people in charge.
My Lords, I did not table an amendment because the Bill would not then clear our parliamentary timetable. However, I want to press the noble Lady, the Minister on the essential need, in my opinion, to have the Royal Marsden involved in that section, either as a National Speciality Lead or the job description of that person must involve the master. The Royal Marsden is the greatest rare cancer specialist hospital in Europe and in the top four in the whole world. Since Second Reading on the 16th January, the Royal Marsden announced on the 10th of February a new £1 billion expansion of its world leading cancer hub, together with the Institute of Cancer Research, and this will be the largest cancer treatment and research facility anywhere in the world.
My Lords, it's just three miles away from this place, and if we want this bill to succeed, please, please, Minister, put the world's best people in charge.
10:11
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
Here, here. >> Here, here. >> My Lords, please let me thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Whitburn Bay, for the skill and Whitburn Bay, for the skill and care with which she has steered this bill through your Lordships House. This is a measured and important piece of legislation that has attracted cross-party support. It addresses an area of clear and long standing need, and it does so in a way that reflects the lived experience of patients and families, particularly those affected by rarer and less well understood cancers, who too often feel overlooked within the system throughout its stages.
We have heard moving contributions from noble Lords with personal experience of these issues, and we congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot's daughter, for braving a skydive to raise money for her teacher's charity. Every individual contribution from people who work tirelessly to combat cancer and to support those living with its impact, does make a very real difference. My Lords, His Majesty's loyal Opposition supports the noble Baroness, lady Elliot supports Doctor Scott, Arthur and the Bill itself, and we look forward to seeing it receive Royal Assent.
We have heard moving contributions from noble Lords with personal experience of these issues, and we congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot's daughter, for braving a skydive to raise money for her teacher's charity. Every individual contribution from people who work tirelessly to combat cancer and to support those living with its impact, does make a very real difference. My Lords, His Majesty's loyal Opposition supports the noble Baroness, lady Elliot supports Doctor Scott, Arthur and the Bill itself, and we look forward to seeing it receive Royal Assent.
10:12
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
My Lords, I am delighted to reaffirm government support for this important Bill. It will make a real difference for rare cancer patients. And as my noble friend Baroness Elliot said, it stands as a real tribute and amount of change to the memory of those we have lost, including our noble friends Baroness McDonagh and the noble Lady Baroness Joel. I have been touched to hear that charities have referred to this as a bill of hope, and I hope myself that is what it will be.
It aligns with our ambition to strengthen the UK's research landscape and improve outcomes for all those affected by a rare cancer, and it also complements the recently published National Cancer Plan, which will drive improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research across the country. To the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I'm pleased to confirm that the new Brain Tumour Research Consortium will be led by the Royal Marsden Hospitals, as well as working with hospitals all across the country, and certainly it is expected they will be consulted when we are looking for the person who will be the speciality lead.
So, my Lords, I am most grateful to all those who contributed throughout the passage of this Bill and in particular to my noble friend Baroness Elliot, for her committed leadership and sensitivity in this matter, in bringing this important legislation forward. Many noble Lords engage so constructively at Second Reading, and I wish to thank all, all of those as well as those advocates in the other place, including Doctor Scott Arthur, who led this bill. This government is determined to go further for everyone diagnosed with a rare cancer.
So I'm delighted that this government supports this bill and that it has been so strongly supported from across the House, both in the other place and in your Lordships House.
It aligns with our ambition to strengthen the UK's research landscape and improve outcomes for all those affected by a rare cancer, and it also complements the recently published National Cancer Plan, which will drive improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research across the country. To the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I'm pleased to confirm that the new Brain Tumour Research Consortium will be led by the Royal Marsden Hospitals, as well as working with hospitals all across the country, and certainly it is expected they will be consulted when we are looking for the person who will be the speciality lead.
So, my Lords, I am most grateful to all those who contributed throughout the passage of this Bill and in particular to my noble friend Baroness Elliot, for her committed leadership and sensitivity in this matter, in bringing this important legislation forward. Many noble Lords engage so constructively at Second Reading, and I wish to thank all, all of those as well as those advocates in the other place, including Doctor Scott Arthur, who led this bill. This government is determined to go further for everyone diagnosed with a rare cancer.
So I'm delighted that this government supports this bill and that it has been so strongly supported from across the House, both in the other place and in your Lordships House.
10:15
Deputy Lord Speaker
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
Deputy Lord Speaker
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
The question is, this Bill do now pass, as many of them will say content, country, not content. The content, country, not content. The contents have it has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of life bill Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Falconer. You've got to sit down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You've got to sit down. Has to be engaged in committee on the terminally ill adults. End of life. Bill, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thoroton. Leave to move that the House do once again resolve itself into a committee on the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Falconer. You've got to sit down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You've got to sit down. Has to be engaged in committee on the terminally ill adults. End of life. Bill, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thoroton. Leave to move that the House do once again resolve itself into a committee on the bill.
10:15
10:15
10:16
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
My Lord, before we begin the Committee stage, I've got a few brief remarks to make. Firstly, my Lords, I reiterate my thanks on Lords, I reiterate my thanks on behalf of the whole House to all staff across the House for the work facilitating this city. A huge amount of work takes place during the day and the days before this sitting to consider this important business. On today's Committee stage, I will not repeat my previous statements, but I should remind noble Lords that in line with the resolution of the House to ask for more time on the bill, I will look to adjourn proceedings around 6 p.m.
But noble Lords and noble Lords can seek to bring proceedings to an end at any time by moving the motion that the House be now resumed. I hope we can conclude the group we are on when we adjourn, but if necessary, I will adjourn the House in the middle of a group. The clerks. The table will have compiled a list of all noble Lords in attendance at the beginning of that adjourned group, noble Lords will be able to check with the table to ensure their name is registered on the list.
If the group is adjourned. It will remain the case that only those present at the start of the debate can participate. Even on a subsequent day, to help with those participating throughout the day, the whips have facilitated a 40 minute lunch break. At around 1 p.m. My noble friend Lord Falconer has set a target for today's debate. I hope the usual discipline and courtesies of the House will make for some more progress. Courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords whom have a different opinion to yourself.
Remembering that everybody holds views just as sincerely as you hold. Yours should be the cornerstone of our debates today and always. For general guidance on how noble Lords should conduct themselves, I highly recommend the companion in particular paragraph 4.29 on page 60 and paragraphs 8.81 and 8.82 on page 143, which are particularly useful for today's proceedings. Noble Lord should not be having conversations with others during the debate. If you want to have conversations, please leave the chamber to do that. With that, I think we should be able to business on pause.
But noble Lords and noble Lords can seek to bring proceedings to an end at any time by moving the motion that the House be now resumed. I hope we can conclude the group we are on when we adjourn, but if necessary, I will adjourn the House in the middle of a group. The clerks. The table will have compiled a list of all noble Lords in attendance at the beginning of that adjourned group, noble Lords will be able to check with the table to ensure their name is registered on the list.
If the group is adjourned. It will remain the case that only those present at the start of the debate can participate. Even on a subsequent day, to help with those participating throughout the day, the whips have facilitated a 40 minute lunch break. At around 1 p.m. My noble friend Lord Falconer has set a target for today's debate. I hope the usual discipline and courtesies of the House will make for some more progress. Courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords whom have a different opinion to yourself.
Remembering that everybody holds views just as sincerely as you hold. Yours should be the cornerstone of our debates today and always. For general guidance on how noble Lords should conduct themselves, I highly recommend the companion in particular paragraph 4.29 on page 60 and paragraphs 8.81 and 8.82 on page 143, which are particularly useful for today's proceedings. Noble Lord should not be having conversations with others during the debate. If you want to have conversations, please leave the chamber to do that. With that, I think we should be able to business on pause.
10:18
Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
Lord Rooker (Labour)
My Lords, for my noble friend, can I just raise a point with him can I just raise a point with him that I'm getting really irritated by constantly listening on the by constantly listening on the wireless to peers complaining about filibustering? And it happens. It's happened to I've twice this week. Happens every week. The fact of the matter is, I've been here every day except one, and I'm not one occasion as anybody ever stood up and complained to the speaker that they were filibustering.
So why is it only going external that peers do that? What prevents someone who feels a filibuster is going on, getting up and saying sorry and being honest and courteous with the House over it? Can I respond?
So why is it only going external that peers do that? What prevents someone who feels a filibuster is going on, getting up and saying sorry and being honest and courteous with the House over it? Can I respond?
10:19
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
I am the person who has been complaining about filibustering on complaining about filibustering on the radio I made. I moved a motion on the 8th of January in which I on the 8th of January in which I set out in detail my position about the delays that have been made. I have complied completely and continue to comply completely with the courtesies of the House during the course of the debate, but that does not mean that I do not think the position is that we are taking an undue length of time in relation to it.
May I give the House the statistics? We have spent 53 hours debating this bill at Committee stage. If we include the additional scrutiny by a select committee and the two full days of debate at Second Reading, we have had more than 80 hours of deliberations on this bill since it was passed to us in June, more than eight months ago, 1253 amendments have been tabled in total, of which we have debated 354. So far we have had over eight. We have over 850 amendments left to be debated, which would suggest we need another 22 days of Committee stage if we continue at this glacial pace.
After nine days of debate, we have completed consideration of just three clauses. We have debated 20 seats groups and have another 60 still to go. I completely endorse what my noble friend, the Chief Whip has said, that we have got to be kind and we have got to be courteous. I would earnestly ask the House to consider whether or not we could agree informally how we could make progress and complete the Committee stage by the end of the next day, because otherwise we failed to do what we are so good at, which is scrutiny and improvement.
The way it is going at the moment, we will reach no conclusions whatsoever. We will appear to be an irrelevant talking shop.
May I give the House the statistics? We have spent 53 hours debating this bill at Committee stage. If we include the additional scrutiny by a select committee and the two full days of debate at Second Reading, we have had more than 80 hours of deliberations on this bill since it was passed to us in June, more than eight months ago, 1253 amendments have been tabled in total, of which we have debated 354. So far we have had over eight. We have over 850 amendments left to be debated, which would suggest we need another 22 days of Committee stage if we continue at this glacial pace.
After nine days of debate, we have completed consideration of just three clauses. We have debated 20 seats groups and have another 60 still to go. I completely endorse what my noble friend, the Chief Whip has said, that we have got to be kind and we have got to be courteous. I would earnestly ask the House to consider whether or not we could agree informally how we could make progress and complete the Committee stage by the end of the next day, because otherwise we failed to do what we are so good at, which is scrutiny and improvement.
The way it is going at the moment, we will reach no conclusions whatsoever. We will appear to be an irrelevant talking shop.
10:21
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
As we all agree with the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, the Chief Whip and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that we should. Everything in this House should be treated with kindness, courtesy and respect. So will we therefore condemn in no uncertain terms the articles in the last couple of days suggesting that there are seven peers who are filibustering. There are a handful of peers putting down hundreds of amendments to sabotage the bill. If he runs a check today, as I have meticulously have, he will find in the first six groups up for debate today.
There are 41 different peers who have tabled amendments. Not seven peers, not a handful of peers, 41 different peers and in the first six groups today have tabled amendments. And they're doing so in order to make this, this very badly drafted bill better. And they're doing it try and make things safer
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for all concerned for. I'm sure the Chief Whip would
There are 41 different peers who have tabled amendments. Not seven peers, not a handful of peers, 41 different peers and in the first six groups today have tabled amendments. And they're doing so in order to make this, this very badly drafted bill better. And they're doing it try and make things safer
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for all concerned for. I'm sure the Chief Whip would
10:22
Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
Lord Blunkett (Labour)
>> I'm sure the Chief Whip would agree. And my noble friend Lord Faulkner, that it is impossible to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
improve a bill if you don't get to a point where you can pass it. Hear, hear. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I just want to make the point that I think the companion asks us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
improve a bill if you don't get to a point where you can pass it. Hear, hear. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I just want to make the point that I think the companion asks us
10:22
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
that I think the companion asks us not to read long speeches. If people have already made the points in the section that we are discussing. When we were dealing with the Mental Health Act, which I think was equally important. I remember long speeches that I had written that I then reduced by standing up and saying that I completely agreed with points that had been made by other peers, and I would really encourage us to adopt a similar approach in our debate today.
10:22
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
Hear, hear. >> The many hours of debate, but only spoken to one group so far. I have other amendments in one group later on which I think are very important, but there are 30 groups important, but there are 30 groups on. Can I just say to noble Lords, I haven't taken the position for or against the Bill in principle, but that we should do our job, which is to make the bill as far as we can fit for purpose, and then to return it to the other place.
We are not going to achieve that unless we each take a personal responsibility to make that happen. For my part, I just want to tell noble Lords I am going to withdraw my remaining amendments at committee and consider very carefully what our essential amendments for Report stage. Otherwise, we cannot, in my view, meet our obligations here.
We are not going to achieve that unless we each take a personal responsibility to make that happen. For my part, I just want to tell noble Lords I am going to withdraw my remaining amendments at committee and consider very carefully what our essential amendments for Report stage. Otherwise, we cannot, in my view, meet our obligations here.
10:23
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
My Lords, take up the point. The noble Lord Lord Rooker about another other noble Lords, about another other noble Lords, about courtesy in relation to our proceedings here, and it would be helpful for those of us who are trying to amend the Bill to be told at the time when we're filibustering, because we don't think we are filibustering, and we think we're debating the bill, and we really would value some guidance if if peers on the other side were to jump up and say it on the time, in the time, rather than in the papers or on the radio later.
10:24
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
First of all, can I thank the Chief Whip for the remarks he made earlier and the response that he made in writing to me following the remarks I made at the end of the last session, where we've adjourned mid group, and he's committed to make that list that the clerks will compile of those that were present at the beginning of the group, available to the various whips, offices and the crossbenchers, so that they can be circulated. And everyone is then clear about who was here, which will hopefully then avoid the confusion that we had at the beginning of a session a few weeks ago where it wasn't entirely clear who was present.
And I think we then ended up having some extra speeches from people that perhaps were not necessarily here at the beginning. So I thank him very much for that helpful advice. Just on the other points that have been made, very briefly, there hasn't been any filibustering. The average length of a speech, well, I hear noble Lords groaning. The average length of a speech in our committee stages so far has been less than
**** Possible New Speaker ****
five. For what it's worth to the chamber is that the noble Lord chamber is that the noble Lord Harper is just beginning his first filibuster. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
filibuster. Now. With respect. Well, I think perhaps the noble Lady should listen to what the government chief whip said about treating people whip said about treating people with kindness, courtesy and respect I was making. I, I started by thanking the government Chief Whip for his helpful observation to avoid confusion when we adjourn mid group, and I was only responding to the points that had been made earlier, including by the noble and learned Lord Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who spoke at some considerable length in his remarks.
And I would have already concluded my remark by now if the noble Lady hadn't intervened on me. So let me just let me just finish what I was going to say, which is the average length of a speech has been less than five minutes, which is half of the length of the time that's set out in the companion. And of course, people moving amendments have up to 15 minutes. So I think that demonstrates that noble Lords are indeed doing what the noble Lady opposite suggested, and making sure they focus on new points and focus on keeping their speeches short.
On a number of occasions I've not said things I'd planned on saying because they've been well ventilated and I felt the remarks had been made. The final point I would would the final point I would make. And again, the grounds do not suggest that people are listening with courtesy and respect. I've I've actually been in this chamber for every single minute of the debate on this bill, and I've listened to every contribution, even those that I fundamentally don't agree with. With courtesy and respect.
And I think it's good. It's good that we all do that on a bill of such importance, which is being viewed by people actually outside this chamber. The final
And I think we then ended up having some extra speeches from people that perhaps were not necessarily here at the beginning. So I thank him very much for that helpful advice. Just on the other points that have been made, very briefly, there hasn't been any filibustering. The average length of a speech, well, I hear noble Lords groaning. The average length of a speech in our committee stages so far has been less than
**** Possible New Speaker ****
five. For what it's worth to the chamber is that the noble Lord chamber is that the noble Lord Harper is just beginning his first filibuster. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
filibuster. Now. With respect. Well, I think perhaps the noble Lady should listen to what the government chief whip said about treating people whip said about treating people with kindness, courtesy and respect I was making. I, I started by thanking the government Chief Whip for his helpful observation to avoid confusion when we adjourn mid group, and I was only responding to the points that had been made earlier, including by the noble and learned Lord Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who spoke at some considerable length in his remarks.
And I would have already concluded my remark by now if the noble Lady hadn't intervened on me. So let me just let me just finish what I was going to say, which is the average length of a speech has been less than five minutes, which is half of the length of the time that's set out in the companion. And of course, people moving amendments have up to 15 minutes. So I think that demonstrates that noble Lords are indeed doing what the noble Lady opposite suggested, and making sure they focus on new points and focus on keeping their speeches short.
On a number of occasions I've not said things I'd planned on saying because they've been well ventilated and I felt the remarks had been made. The final point I would would the final point I would make. And again, the grounds do not suggest that people are listening with courtesy and respect. I've I've actually been in this chamber for every single minute of the debate on this bill, and I've listened to every contribution, even those that I fundamentally don't agree with. With courtesy and respect.
And I think it's good. It's good that we all do that on a bill of such importance, which is being viewed by people actually outside this chamber. The final
10:27
Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Harper (Conservative)
point I was going to say was, I think we would have made more progress if many of the issues that have been known about with this have been known about with this bill, when it was first introduced and left the other place, have been dealt with in as early a stage and dealt with in as early a stage and we are making progress. We have improved the bill. We accepted the amendment that the Noble and amendment that the Noble and learned law tabled on dealing with the well known issue about anorexia.
So we have improved the bill that So we have improved the bill that could have been done a long time ago. So I think those complaining about the lack of progress ought just to reflect on their own contribution to the Bill, not being in a state where we were able to make swifter progress and move to report at an earlier opportunity.
So we have improved the bill that So we have improved the bill that could have been done a long time ago. So I think those complaining about the lack of progress ought just to reflect on their own contribution to the Bill, not being in a state where we were able to make swifter progress and move to report at an earlier opportunity.
10:27
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
My Lords suggest that we heed the very wise advice of the noble the very wise advice of the noble Lord Lord Lansley, and proceed day, as the noble Lady said, and get through as many groups as possible, through as many groups as possible, making amendments as we see fit, as a chamber, as we do our job of scrutiny. Which is exactly why we're here, my Lord.
10:28
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
I rise because in my vicinity, >> I rise because in my vicinity, as this debate started to this discussion started, somebody said, if this isn't filibustering, I if this isn't filibustering, I don't know what is. And I just it was said in this direction. I just want to point out that it is demoralising to have one's reputation impugned and defamed, that somehow all that people are doing is playing parliamentary games, when actually we're acting in good faith. I've actually not spoken on amendments that I put my name to.
For example, I have put speeches that I've written, but I want to refer to writing speeches. I do write speeches and I read them out. Why is that? Because I'm trying to be disciplined and keep to time and not just ramble on. And this is a very important bill with important issues that affect the lives of many people. And I want to be sensitive to that. And so I write down every word trying to make it count for something. I don't think that's filibustering.
For example, I have put speeches that I've written, but I want to refer to writing speeches. I do write speeches and I read them out. Why is that? Because I'm trying to be disciplined and keep to time and not just ramble on. And this is a very important bill with important issues that affect the lives of many people. And I want to be sensitive to that. And so I write down every word trying to make it count for something. I don't think that's filibustering.
10:29
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
What my Lords are. Briefly, my noble friend Lord Faulkner actually noble friend Lord Faulkner actually gave us some very useful statistics to the House. I don't intend to comment further. Can I say that I comment further. Can I say that I will make the list available as Lord Harper asked for? Very happily. I think Lord Rowlands made very, very good points about we are self regulating house and we all treasure that self regulation. But of course it actually does involve some self discipline then.
But how we operate, that's a really very important thing. Thing. I've accused nobody of filibustering from here. The campaigning does help us in terms of comments to the media. Well, I was all over the media yesterday about this bill and I've not commented at all. So I ignore the media now. There's all sorts of things I'm accused of every day of the week in this house. Right? Which half true. Half not true at all, you know. So largely, I'll just forget about it and just get on with the bill.
Yeah.
But how we operate, that's a really very important thing. Thing. I've accused nobody of filibustering from here. The campaigning does help us in terms of comments to the media. Well, I was all over the media yesterday about this bill and I've not commented at all. So I ignore the media now. There's all sorts of things I'm accused of every day of the week in this house. Right? Which half true. Half not true at all, you know. So largely, I'll just forget about it and just get on with the bill.
Yeah.
10:30
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
In clause four, amendment 122 Baroness Cass. >> My Lords, I will be brief because I believe my amendment 122 and the consequential amendments that follow it address a very straightforward and practical issue, saying that could be the kiss of death. But never mind. It's absolutely self-evident that if this bill passes into law, the
10:30
Amendment:122
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
-
Amendment:122
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
monitoring of its implementation will be absolutely crucial. And there are several aspects of there are several aspects of implementation that will need to follow closely. Firstly, any evidence of the concerns that have evidence of the concerns that have been widely expressed in this House of coercion, and particularly to take account of differentials in take account of differentials in the socio economic circumstances of those seeking assisted deaths. Secondly, we need to be aware of postcode lotteries and implementation and particular challenges in staffing and delivery in certain localities.
And thirdly, we need to be aware of creep as has occurred in other jurisdictions. Now, in a later amendment, I've proposed that voluntary assisted dying services should be commissioned by the specialised commissioning team currently located in NHS England. This team commissions highly specialist small volume services and the assisted dying services would fall within this. Within this definition, and the advantage of this approach is that there's a national Service spec, nationally defined workforce requirements and quality standards and monitoring of the contract by the national team.
In late January, Lord Fuller did notify us of his planned amendments to ensure that the service will be regulated by NHS or CQC or both. However, it's not yet clear how that might work in practice, so this leaves us with the currently proposed arrangements in clause four, in which the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner has a dual role, he or she is required to take on much of the operational delivery of the process and at the same time monitor the operation of the act and report on it to national authorities.
I would submit that it's not appropriate for the Commissioner to be both poacher turned gamekeeper and to mark his or her own homework, because he'll be mixing his roles. Then, as shamelessly as I just mixed my metaphors. So my amendments, therefore, seek to separate the role of the Commissioner to be much like the Children's Commissioner, who is fully independent from the agencies that she has oversight of, and a director to undertake the delivery aspects of the work. Now, these may or may not be the finally agreed terms or or mechanisms, but I think the intent is clear and I leave it open to both the noble and Lord learned Lord, the sponsor and other noble Lords to discuss, discuss other ways in which this separation of roles might be achieved.
My only other point is to draw attention to my amendment 131, which makes clear that although the commissioner is supposed to be an individual who has held high judicial office, neither the commissioner nor the director is discharging a judicial function in undertaking their responsibilities under this act. And on this point, I really am just a warm up for Lord Weir of Ballyholme builds out the
And thirdly, we need to be aware of creep as has occurred in other jurisdictions. Now, in a later amendment, I've proposed that voluntary assisted dying services should be commissioned by the specialised commissioning team currently located in NHS England. This team commissions highly specialist small volume services and the assisted dying services would fall within this. Within this definition, and the advantage of this approach is that there's a national Service spec, nationally defined workforce requirements and quality standards and monitoring of the contract by the national team.
In late January, Lord Fuller did notify us of his planned amendments to ensure that the service will be regulated by NHS or CQC or both. However, it's not yet clear how that might work in practice, so this leaves us with the currently proposed arrangements in clause four, in which the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner has a dual role, he or she is required to take on much of the operational delivery of the process and at the same time monitor the operation of the act and report on it to national authorities.
I would submit that it's not appropriate for the Commissioner to be both poacher turned gamekeeper and to mark his or her own homework, because he'll be mixing his roles. Then, as shamelessly as I just mixed my metaphors. So my amendments, therefore, seek to separate the role of the Commissioner to be much like the Children's Commissioner, who is fully independent from the agencies that she has oversight of, and a director to undertake the delivery aspects of the work. Now, these may or may not be the finally agreed terms or or mechanisms, but I think the intent is clear and I leave it open to both the noble and Lord learned Lord, the sponsor and other noble Lords to discuss, discuss other ways in which this separation of roles might be achieved.
My only other point is to draw attention to my amendment 131, which makes clear that although the commissioner is supposed to be an individual who has held high judicial office, neither the commissioner nor the director is discharging a judicial function in undertaking their responsibilities under this act. And on this point, I really am just a warm up for Lord Weir of Ballyholme builds out the
10:33
Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
Amendment proposed clause four, page two, line 24 at end insert and page two, line 24 at end insert and speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very briefly to. You in the chair of the committee very shortly, if I may committee very shortly, if I may speak very briefly to my amendment in this group, simply to say that to broaden the debate which no Baroness Bi Baroness Cass has introduced, clearly there is a need to establish that this post can have confidence and a degree of consensus around it. And I'm not sure that's been achieved by what's been proposed so far. So my amendment simply brings in the procedure which is used in the other place in the Commons for most regulatory posts that are the subject of some sort of hearing process by the relevant select committee, that system has been developed in years.
While I was in the Commons and as chairman of the Justice Committee, I operated it several times. It works reasonably well in some. In rare cases. The Treasury Committee, for example, has a veto on the appointment. That's as this amendment itself does, but it's a means of trying to ensure that the right questions are asked at the right time when appointments are made. Surely, after recent weeks, we've learned the lesson that if you don't have a proper scrutiny of appointments and you don't have a system in which the right questions are asked, things can go very badly wrong.
And we certainly don't want them to go badly wrong in this area. And that is sufficient to explain what my amendment is about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very briefly to. You in the chair of the committee very shortly, if I may committee very shortly, if I may speak very briefly to my amendment in this group, simply to say that to broaden the debate which no Baroness Bi Baroness Cass has introduced, clearly there is a need to establish that this post can have confidence and a degree of consensus around it. And I'm not sure that's been achieved by what's been proposed so far. So my amendment simply brings in the procedure which is used in the other place in the Commons for most regulatory posts that are the subject of some sort of hearing process by the relevant select committee, that system has been developed in years.
While I was in the Commons and as chairman of the Justice Committee, I operated it several times. It works reasonably well in some. In rare cases. The Treasury Committee, for example, has a veto on the appointment. That's as this amendment itself does, but it's a means of trying to ensure that the right questions are asked at the right time when appointments are made. Surely, after recent weeks, we've learned the lesson that if you don't have a proper scrutiny of appointments and you don't have a system in which the right questions are asked, things can go very badly wrong.
And we certainly don't want them to go badly wrong in this area. And that is sufficient to explain what my amendment is about.
10:35
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
My Lords are very grateful that the noble Lord was able to introduce his remarks before he has to go and perform his functions as chairman of committee. I've only got a few things to say, and it's a very my my amendment is is discreet in the sense that it doesn't really affect much of the rest of the, the, the bill, and it really can be taken quite briefly. And I do hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner will be able to agree it, not least because it bolsters the job that he once held.
That said, I, I, with respect, disagree with only one point that the noble Lady, Lady Cass mentioned in her remarks, and that is that the the function of the commissioner is not simply administrative. There is a judicial element to, to the work of the Commission, and that's to be found in clause four Subclause four Subclause d one of the principal functions of the Commissioner is the determining of applications for reconsideration of panel decisions under section 18. That said, I fully accept that it's a it's a mixed function job, it's partly administrative and it's partly judicial, but then so are quite a lot of senior judicial jobs.
The Lord Chief Justice, the master of the rolls all have very heavy administrative burdens, as well as having to perform a judicial function. And no one would suggest I would venture to put before the committee that those people should be appointed directly by the Prime Minister. I think it is more appropriate for someone in this particular position. I think it is constitutionally more appropriate constitutionally more appropriate for someone who is to be the, the, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to be appointed as so many other judicial and quasi judicial posts are by the sovereign, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
Now, I appreciate the office of the Lord Chancellor has changed a lot since the 2005 act. More's the pity, in my view. But there we are. That's a long time ago when I become Prime Minister. Of course I shall have it changed. But. I do think that there is a nice distinction to be drawn between the appointments made in the way that I suggest, and if my amendment is accepted by the committee or by the the House as a whole, it will obviously have a knock on effect on the appointment of the.
The Deputy Commissioner under paragraph 31 of schedule one of of the bill. But don't let's delay ourselves in relation to that. All I'm saying is that I think it is more appropriate for this particular function to be appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, as so many other similar posts are. It was said, I think in the other place by a Minister responding to the government that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister, and he, like the assisted dying Commissioner, has to be a sitting or retired member of the senior judiciary.
Well, the I think that's a false point. The distinction between this job and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is dealing with matters of national security, and that is essentially a matter for the Prime Minister. Whereas this assisted dying commissioner is not dealing with matters of national security, foreign policy or anything of that nature, he is dealing simply with the the workings of the of of this Bill or this act as it as it may yet become.
So it's a very short point. It's a very simple point, and I'm sure it's one that the, the noble and learned Lord can easily agree with, because it doesn't damage the bill. It's simply a technical adjustment of the route to appointment, and I urge the committee to support it. Thank you.
That said, I, I, with respect, disagree with only one point that the noble Lady, Lady Cass mentioned in her remarks, and that is that the the function of the commissioner is not simply administrative. There is a judicial element to, to the work of the Commission, and that's to be found in clause four Subclause four Subclause d one of the principal functions of the Commissioner is the determining of applications for reconsideration of panel decisions under section 18. That said, I fully accept that it's a it's a mixed function job, it's partly administrative and it's partly judicial, but then so are quite a lot of senior judicial jobs.
The Lord Chief Justice, the master of the rolls all have very heavy administrative burdens, as well as having to perform a judicial function. And no one would suggest I would venture to put before the committee that those people should be appointed directly by the Prime Minister. I think it is more appropriate for someone in this particular position. I think it is constitutionally more appropriate constitutionally more appropriate for someone who is to be the, the, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to be appointed as so many other judicial and quasi judicial posts are by the sovereign, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
Now, I appreciate the office of the Lord Chancellor has changed a lot since the 2005 act. More's the pity, in my view. But there we are. That's a long time ago when I become Prime Minister. Of course I shall have it changed. But. I do think that there is a nice distinction to be drawn between the appointments made in the way that I suggest, and if my amendment is accepted by the committee or by the the House as a whole, it will obviously have a knock on effect on the appointment of the.
The Deputy Commissioner under paragraph 31 of schedule one of of the bill. But don't let's delay ourselves in relation to that. All I'm saying is that I think it is more appropriate for this particular function to be appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, as so many other similar posts are. It was said, I think in the other place by a Minister responding to the government that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister, and he, like the assisted dying Commissioner, has to be a sitting or retired member of the senior judiciary.
Well, the I think that's a false point. The distinction between this job and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is dealing with matters of national security, and that is essentially a matter for the Prime Minister. Whereas this assisted dying commissioner is not dealing with matters of national security, foreign policy or anything of that nature, he is dealing simply with the the workings of the of of this Bill or this act as it as it may yet become.
So it's a very short point. It's a very simple point, and I'm sure it's one that the, the noble and learned Lord can easily agree with, because it doesn't damage the bill. It's simply a technical adjustment of the route to appointment, and I urge the committee to support it. Thank you.
10:39
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
I rise to move three amendments in this group, two standing in my name and the third, on behalf of Baroness Foster, which I have co-signed. I'll just touch on that briefly. At 128128 is essentially largely probing in nature the bill. And I think we wouldn't take any particular exceptions to this deals lists the principal functions of the commissioner but doesn't outline. I think it's a bit of a gap here. Outline the specific duties of the commissioner.
And so it was to probe whether those, as suggested, the duties are correct. And also, I think to see where we can have a A level. The commissioner has a particular role in terms of, of having ensuring effective oversight. So that is the purpose of 1 to 8. But I look forward directly on 1 to 8 to hearing the response of the bill's sponsor in relation to that, because we feel that there is a bit of a gap at present, moving on to 1 to 9 to follow on from the remarks of of Baroness Cass.
I'd not anticipated whenever I arrived today being Baroness Cass effectively being my the warm up act for me in relation to that. And I thank her for her remarks. But 1 to 9 is essentially dealing with the issue of whether the Commissioner is required to be, or should be required to be, either a senior judge or retired judge. In part, it is also got a slightly probing quality to it. And again, I would seek from that to listen to the remarks of the bill's sponsor.
But also, I think given where the passage of the bill has gone so far and we're in a slightly fluid situation, is where this lands. If things remain unchanged at present. And I appreciate, for instance, there have been a number of formulas. For example, I think Lord Carlile has made some suggestions of how we could inject back some level of judicial introduction to the panels themselves. It is something I think, that would probably be keen to press at Report stage.
If that issue isn't resolved and we're left with the current situation. The reason being that this bill, whenever it was introduced in the Commons, initially had as one of its absolutely core elements, the judicial function and indeed a judge within it, within the panels themselves. This was supposedly one of the great selling points of the supposed safest bill in the world, I have to say, slightly self proclaimed safest bill in the world. But we've seen that that that position, albeit I'm sure that the bill sponsors will give reasons for that.
That position has been resiled from and we've moved away from that, that core element. So if we're not having a core element within of a judge within the Parliament itself, do we leave a situation in which the Commissioner having to be either a, a, a, a senior serving judge or retired judge, does that create a veneer of judicial impact when actually the core element has been has been taken out? And that is more all the more appropriate? Whenever we look at the functions that have been listed for it.
And there are five functions that being listed briefly, A and B are receiving documents and compiling a list of eligible panel members. It's hard to say where that would require a particular level of judicial impact that is essentially administrative in nature. Similarly, at C, where it is making relations, sorry, making arrangements in relation to the panel, that again, is a function which largely lies within administrative competence rather than any element of judicial quality. The one area which does touch upon it, as was highlighted, is a D when it talks about reconsideration of cases, but the cases are not to be considered reconsidered on their own merits, and the sponsor of the bill in the other place, Kim Leadbeater said the commissioner's quote, not to be acting as a judge.
So even within that, there is a query over the level of judicial impact that is going to be there a D and finally, at at A, we see the that there will be a sort of a monitoring role. And particularly as regards the medical statistics and the question mark in relation to that, if we are looking for somebody who's going to produce that particular role, as probably initially suggested, is that that was initially, I think, put within the remit of the Chief Medical Officer.
And it seems to be that a medical professional is much better suited to that particular role within that. So there are queries over the applicability and whether we are simply creating a facade of judicial involvement by having a the requirement currently within the bill. Moving on, then finally to the position of my other amendment, which is at four nine, six C, this would actually create the the opportunity to afford the person, if they if they desire an opportunity for a hearing in front of the Commissioner, rather than simply being decided by a paper hearing.
And it would cover aspects where someone is registered disabled under the act, whether there where there are particular issues over communication availability, cognitive impairment, mental distress, for instance, and where it's in the interests of justice. Now, we would take on board very much. I think the remarks, I think of Lord Faulkner and others who have indicated that we're dealing with people who may be in a very latter stage of of illnesses and as such, their physical movements in terms of appearance may be very limited, which is why, very specifically, the amendment enables that, that there is the opportunity for this simply to be done remotely.
So it would not be a question of someone having to go into particular position. But particularly and we know that there is a lot of concern that is out there amongst disabled groups. And I think this is one aspect which I think is of concern to them. We know that that if there is the opportunity for an applicant to be seen and heard, there can be great advantages within that. We know that, for example, that enables the commission to test out issues around whether there's been any level of miscommunication.
Well, there's been any level of misunderstanding to detect whether the person has a level of motivation, of feeling that they are a burden, or indeed, that where there has been a level of coercion which has gone unnoticed up to that point. And I think that is the advantage of giving that opportunity of a level of hearing. This has been something which has been highlighted by the UN. Human rights experts Report on disabilities, which has talked about that there can be barriers in terms of communication and accessibility for disabled people, and that a failure to adapt procedures to deal with those issues can lead to a form of de facto discrimination.
That is a point which I think has also been highlighted when similar legislation, but the Scottish Human Rights Commission have talked about the need for accessible communication and decision making support to ensure that any request is genuine and that paper based procedures can disadvantage people in with cognitive, sensory or communication impairments in unless they're adapted. So this is to seek a level of reassurance and a level of adaptation. And by giving that opportunity for the applicant does preserve the idea of autonomy.
So I look forward to the bill's sponsor answering the queries. I am sure he will do that in a very kind, in a very elegant and eloquent manner. And I'm sure possibly with without perhaps a great deal of hope of him necessarily adopting these amendments. But I look forward nevertheless to hear his conclusions on the remarks that I've made.
And so it was to probe whether those, as suggested, the duties are correct. And also, I think to see where we can have a A level. The commissioner has a particular role in terms of, of having ensuring effective oversight. So that is the purpose of 1 to 8. But I look forward directly on 1 to 8 to hearing the response of the bill's sponsor in relation to that, because we feel that there is a bit of a gap at present, moving on to 1 to 9 to follow on from the remarks of of Baroness Cass.
I'd not anticipated whenever I arrived today being Baroness Cass effectively being my the warm up act for me in relation to that. And I thank her for her remarks. But 1 to 9 is essentially dealing with the issue of whether the Commissioner is required to be, or should be required to be, either a senior judge or retired judge. In part, it is also got a slightly probing quality to it. And again, I would seek from that to listen to the remarks of the bill's sponsor.
But also, I think given where the passage of the bill has gone so far and we're in a slightly fluid situation, is where this lands. If things remain unchanged at present. And I appreciate, for instance, there have been a number of formulas. For example, I think Lord Carlile has made some suggestions of how we could inject back some level of judicial introduction to the panels themselves. It is something I think, that would probably be keen to press at Report stage.
If that issue isn't resolved and we're left with the current situation. The reason being that this bill, whenever it was introduced in the Commons, initially had as one of its absolutely core elements, the judicial function and indeed a judge within it, within the panels themselves. This was supposedly one of the great selling points of the supposed safest bill in the world, I have to say, slightly self proclaimed safest bill in the world. But we've seen that that that position, albeit I'm sure that the bill sponsors will give reasons for that.
That position has been resiled from and we've moved away from that, that core element. So if we're not having a core element within of a judge within the Parliament itself, do we leave a situation in which the Commissioner having to be either a, a, a, a senior serving judge or retired judge, does that create a veneer of judicial impact when actually the core element has been has been taken out? And that is more all the more appropriate? Whenever we look at the functions that have been listed for it.
And there are five functions that being listed briefly, A and B are receiving documents and compiling a list of eligible panel members. It's hard to say where that would require a particular level of judicial impact that is essentially administrative in nature. Similarly, at C, where it is making relations, sorry, making arrangements in relation to the panel, that again, is a function which largely lies within administrative competence rather than any element of judicial quality. The one area which does touch upon it, as was highlighted, is a D when it talks about reconsideration of cases, but the cases are not to be considered reconsidered on their own merits, and the sponsor of the bill in the other place, Kim Leadbeater said the commissioner's quote, not to be acting as a judge.
So even within that, there is a query over the level of judicial impact that is going to be there a D and finally, at at A, we see the that there will be a sort of a monitoring role. And particularly as regards the medical statistics and the question mark in relation to that, if we are looking for somebody who's going to produce that particular role, as probably initially suggested, is that that was initially, I think, put within the remit of the Chief Medical Officer.
And it seems to be that a medical professional is much better suited to that particular role within that. So there are queries over the applicability and whether we are simply creating a facade of judicial involvement by having a the requirement currently within the bill. Moving on, then finally to the position of my other amendment, which is at four nine, six C, this would actually create the the opportunity to afford the person, if they if they desire an opportunity for a hearing in front of the Commissioner, rather than simply being decided by a paper hearing.
And it would cover aspects where someone is registered disabled under the act, whether there where there are particular issues over communication availability, cognitive impairment, mental distress, for instance, and where it's in the interests of justice. Now, we would take on board very much. I think the remarks, I think of Lord Faulkner and others who have indicated that we're dealing with people who may be in a very latter stage of of illnesses and as such, their physical movements in terms of appearance may be very limited, which is why, very specifically, the amendment enables that, that there is the opportunity for this simply to be done remotely.
So it would not be a question of someone having to go into particular position. But particularly and we know that there is a lot of concern that is out there amongst disabled groups. And I think this is one aspect which I think is of concern to them. We know that that if there is the opportunity for an applicant to be seen and heard, there can be great advantages within that. We know that, for example, that enables the commission to test out issues around whether there's been any level of miscommunication.
Well, there's been any level of misunderstanding to detect whether the person has a level of motivation, of feeling that they are a burden, or indeed, that where there has been a level of coercion which has gone unnoticed up to that point. And I think that is the advantage of giving that opportunity of a level of hearing. This has been something which has been highlighted by the UN. Human rights experts Report on disabilities, which has talked about that there can be barriers in terms of communication and accessibility for disabled people, and that a failure to adapt procedures to deal with those issues can lead to a form of de facto discrimination.
That is a point which I think has also been highlighted when similar legislation, but the Scottish Human Rights Commission have talked about the need for accessible communication and decision making support to ensure that any request is genuine and that paper based procedures can disadvantage people in with cognitive, sensory or communication impairments in unless they're adapted. So this is to seek a level of reassurance and a level of adaptation. And by giving that opportunity for the applicant does preserve the idea of autonomy.
So I look forward to the bill's sponsor answering the queries. I am sure he will do that in a very kind, in a very elegant and eloquent manner. And I'm sure possibly with without perhaps a great deal of hope of him necessarily adopting these amendments. But I look forward nevertheless to hear his conclusions on the remarks that I've made.
10:48
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
My Lords, I. >> My Lords, I. >> My Lords, I rise to introduce amendment one for for a in my name, which is related to my other which is related to my other amendments two, seven, 268 and 728A, which a group much later, and which I don't expect to speak to. I draw attention to my register of interests. When I was at the Winton Centre in Cambridge, I led a team that produced information for patients within the NHS, and I'm still involved with that.
And it's this experience which underscores this amendment, which has the support of the BMA. Amendment 144A makes the assisted Dying Commissioner responsible for the provision of the personalised and balanced information required for patients making their end of life decisions under this act. This is because I know how much is involved in producing this information, how carefully it needs to be done, how controversial it can be and therefore that it needs to be properly resourced, and the lines of responsibility for it to be clear.
Now, I know we've already had discussion around informed consent, and I think we all agree that people during this process outlined in the bill need to go through the process of consent, but they also need to go through the process of shared decision making, which is different for both shared decision making and consent, though eligible people need to be given the risks and benefits of different options open to them, including of doing nothing. And that information has to be personalised as much to each patient as possible, and it has to be presented in a way that's understandable to them.
And it's rightly the responsibility of the doctors to give that information to patients and to check their understanding of it through talking with them. But where do the doctors get that information from? Increasingly, healthcare professionals are provided with tools to help them. Online risk calculators help personalise information on prognoses or the chances of an event for a patient like the one they're talking to at that moment. Decision aids bring together all the current known evidence on side effects and represented in easily understood ways, and patients can take these away and refer back to them whilst considering their decision.
And I just want to give an example for benign enlarged prostate. There are two main classes of medicines and eight at least eight different types of surgery available to patients. And I don't think a single individual doctor would know the actual numbers for the average effectiveness, and for each of the major side effects for every one of those ten options, each specialist would know the figures for 2 or 3 of the options that they offered or were familiar with, enough to consent their patients for their favoured option, but not enough to help the patient make an informed choice from all of the options available.
To do that, they need a decision support tool which has all of that information, but also more than that. And that's why these sorts of decision aids are needed. And I want to give the House a sense of what's involved in making them, because it's important to understanding this amendment. When we make them, we work hand in hand with patients and members of the public, with people with visual and learning disabilities and neurodiversity, and conduct academic research into how people interpret numbers and graphics representing them.
And I mentioned that the need for informed consent and for shared decision making are different. And what we find when we work with people is that when making a decision, people weigh up a much broader range of pros and cons than simply risk and benefit numbers. The information they want is not just a percentage risk. That would tend to be what doctors would be able to tell them when doing informed consent, but also information about how to access different options, including those available outside the NHS.
They want to know what would or might happen, like what a certain test actually involves and why it's done. They want to know where things would happen. They need to know what their rights are and their options are about things like their right to say no to something or to have someone else with them. They want prompts for questions that they might want to ask or consider asking, and spaces to write notes for themselves to be passed on if they didn't have, so they don't have to repeat themselves at every appointment.
All of these things in one place help people who are not feeling at their best, navigate an unfamiliar medical world, and have more confidence that the decisions that they're making are the best ones for them. And we know that from working with patients and getting their feedback that this is the sort of information that terminally ill people will need in order to support them making decisions around their end of life. I describe all of this to illustrate that this information needs to be very carefully put together, and I know that it takes time.
It takes about a year or so to do all the background research design test with a range of real patients and relatives, and possibly longer in this case because it'll need to be quite personalised and kept up to date because of the geographical variations in provisions of different options provided by different providers, like those who find in palliative care. And of course, that time and that team doing that work will need to be funded and the final versions will need to be approved and then kept constantly up to date.
And that's why I proposed amendment 144 A to ensure that this very important job is overseen by the Assisted Dying Commissioner. With their legal background and the current job description in the in the bill, they should have the means to request the right amount of resourcing from the government to make sure that this information is produced to the right, standard and well maintained. Now, I don't think anyone in this chamber or outside would disagree that balanced, personalised information about options in a suitable format for everybody, whatever their disabilities, is critical to this bill, and I don't think that anyone will, having heard what that takes, underestimate the amount of work that this will entail.
There will be a lot of people who might want to persuade patients rather than inform them around this decision, and that makes it particularly important that official information is produced, carefully overseen, kept up to date. And currently in this bill, it's not entirely clear whose responsibility this commissioning of information provision would be. When we make them, we commission to make these by a team within NHS England. But it doesn't just spontaneously happen even within the NHS. It's unclear to me whose responsibility it will be when NHS England disbands, for example, and an assisted dying service may be outside the NHS.
And that's why I think it's important that this bill specifically assigns this critical responsibility. And the best person, the only person with the specific ability to ensure funds appears to be the proposed assisted dying Commissioner.
And it's this experience which underscores this amendment, which has the support of the BMA. Amendment 144A makes the assisted Dying Commissioner responsible for the provision of the personalised and balanced information required for patients making their end of life decisions under this act. This is because I know how much is involved in producing this information, how carefully it needs to be done, how controversial it can be and therefore that it needs to be properly resourced, and the lines of responsibility for it to be clear.
Now, I know we've already had discussion around informed consent, and I think we all agree that people during this process outlined in the bill need to go through the process of consent, but they also need to go through the process of shared decision making, which is different for both shared decision making and consent, though eligible people need to be given the risks and benefits of different options open to them, including of doing nothing. And that information has to be personalised as much to each patient as possible, and it has to be presented in a way that's understandable to them.
And it's rightly the responsibility of the doctors to give that information to patients and to check their understanding of it through talking with them. But where do the doctors get that information from? Increasingly, healthcare professionals are provided with tools to help them. Online risk calculators help personalise information on prognoses or the chances of an event for a patient like the one they're talking to at that moment. Decision aids bring together all the current known evidence on side effects and represented in easily understood ways, and patients can take these away and refer back to them whilst considering their decision.
And I just want to give an example for benign enlarged prostate. There are two main classes of medicines and eight at least eight different types of surgery available to patients. And I don't think a single individual doctor would know the actual numbers for the average effectiveness, and for each of the major side effects for every one of those ten options, each specialist would know the figures for 2 or 3 of the options that they offered or were familiar with, enough to consent their patients for their favoured option, but not enough to help the patient make an informed choice from all of the options available.
To do that, they need a decision support tool which has all of that information, but also more than that. And that's why these sorts of decision aids are needed. And I want to give the House a sense of what's involved in making them, because it's important to understanding this amendment. When we make them, we work hand in hand with patients and members of the public, with people with visual and learning disabilities and neurodiversity, and conduct academic research into how people interpret numbers and graphics representing them.
And I mentioned that the need for informed consent and for shared decision making are different. And what we find when we work with people is that when making a decision, people weigh up a much broader range of pros and cons than simply risk and benefit numbers. The information they want is not just a percentage risk. That would tend to be what doctors would be able to tell them when doing informed consent, but also information about how to access different options, including those available outside the NHS.
They want to know what would or might happen, like what a certain test actually involves and why it's done. They want to know where things would happen. They need to know what their rights are and their options are about things like their right to say no to something or to have someone else with them. They want prompts for questions that they might want to ask or consider asking, and spaces to write notes for themselves to be passed on if they didn't have, so they don't have to repeat themselves at every appointment.
All of these things in one place help people who are not feeling at their best, navigate an unfamiliar medical world, and have more confidence that the decisions that they're making are the best ones for them. And we know that from working with patients and getting their feedback that this is the sort of information that terminally ill people will need in order to support them making decisions around their end of life. I describe all of this to illustrate that this information needs to be very carefully put together, and I know that it takes time.
It takes about a year or so to do all the background research design test with a range of real patients and relatives, and possibly longer in this case because it'll need to be quite personalised and kept up to date because of the geographical variations in provisions of different options provided by different providers, like those who find in palliative care. And of course, that time and that team doing that work will need to be funded and the final versions will need to be approved and then kept constantly up to date.
And that's why I proposed amendment 144 A to ensure that this very important job is overseen by the Assisted Dying Commissioner. With their legal background and the current job description in the in the bill, they should have the means to request the right amount of resourcing from the government to make sure that this information is produced to the right, standard and well maintained. Now, I don't think anyone in this chamber or outside would disagree that balanced, personalised information about options in a suitable format for everybody, whatever their disabilities, is critical to this bill, and I don't think that anyone will, having heard what that takes, underestimate the amount of work that this will entail.
There will be a lot of people who might want to persuade patients rather than inform them around this decision, and that makes it particularly important that official information is produced, carefully overseen, kept up to date. And currently in this bill, it's not entirely clear whose responsibility this commissioning of information provision would be. When we make them, we commission to make these by a team within NHS England. But it doesn't just spontaneously happen even within the NHS. It's unclear to me whose responsibility it will be when NHS England disbands, for example, and an assisted dying service may be outside the NHS.
And that's why I think it's important that this bill specifically assigns this critical responsibility. And the best person, the only person with the specific ability to ensure funds appears to be the proposed assisted dying Commissioner.
10:55
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
So sorry, my Lords. >> I rise to speak briefly to my. >> Amendment 134, which is a probing amendment. The noble Lord, probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, drew our attention to clause four Subclause four, which set out what he referred to as the principal functions as the functions of the assisted dying Commissioner. In fact, the text says the principal functions, and my amendment suggests replacing the word principal with sole. Those functions are very extensive.
They're elaborated in, amongst other places. Schedule one. Schedule two. Section 16. Section 18. Section 49. They are, as I say, very, very extensive. They include in schedule one a general power to do anything which may be necessary or appropriate for the for the Commissioner to do in order to be able to carry out his functions. He is not short of responsibilities, and he is not short of powers in order to be able to carry them out. Yet in the on the face of the bill, these are described as his principal functions.
So my first question to the noble and learned Lord is are there any other functions? Would is anything lost by changing the word principal to sole? Does he consider that there are secondary functions that the assisted dying commissioner has? Now, I ask that I say this briefly, because many of us are concerned that the voluntary assisted dying Commissioner could easily become an advocate for change to the to the to the framework that we are establishing in this bill.
In particular, it may be found that some of the requirements that are set out in the bill are irksome and difficult and take time. Well, of course, that is quite deliberate. The noble and learned Lord has set up a structure which is not meant to be easy to navigate quite deliberately. This is not an easy structure to navigate, and it may well be that that that the assisted dying commissioner comes out with his annual report. He has to produce annual accounts.
I'm sure it will contain things over and above purely financial figures. He will come out with his annual report suggesting changes and relaxations and so forth. He can't make those changes and relaxations mostly on his own. But we do not want, if we establish this bill, which many of us are strongly opposed to, we do not want an officially paid, highly regarded advocate for the relaxation of the of of the safeguards that we have built in to be operating out there.
So I come back to the question very simply. First of all, does the noble and learned Lord want to say whether he considers there are other functions over and above those set out in the bill and taking account of the general power I've already mentioned, and secondly, that he will give us some assurance that he does not see this role as being one which is an advocate for relaxation or change.
They're elaborated in, amongst other places. Schedule one. Schedule two. Section 16. Section 18. Section 49. They are, as I say, very, very extensive. They include in schedule one a general power to do anything which may be necessary or appropriate for the for the Commissioner to do in order to be able to carry out his functions. He is not short of responsibilities, and he is not short of powers in order to be able to carry them out. Yet in the on the face of the bill, these are described as his principal functions.
So my first question to the noble and learned Lord is are there any other functions? Would is anything lost by changing the word principal to sole? Does he consider that there are secondary functions that the assisted dying commissioner has? Now, I ask that I say this briefly, because many of us are concerned that the voluntary assisted dying Commissioner could easily become an advocate for change to the to the to the framework that we are establishing in this bill.
In particular, it may be found that some of the requirements that are set out in the bill are irksome and difficult and take time. Well, of course, that is quite deliberate. The noble and learned Lord has set up a structure which is not meant to be easy to navigate quite deliberately. This is not an easy structure to navigate, and it may well be that that that the assisted dying commissioner comes out with his annual report. He has to produce annual accounts.
I'm sure it will contain things over and above purely financial figures. He will come out with his annual report suggesting changes and relaxations and so forth. He can't make those changes and relaxations mostly on his own. But we do not want, if we establish this bill, which many of us are strongly opposed to, we do not want an officially paid, highly regarded advocate for the relaxation of the of of the safeguards that we have built in to be operating out there.
So I come back to the question very simply. First of all, does the noble and learned Lord want to say whether he considers there are other functions over and above those set out in the bill and taking account of the general power I've already mentioned, and secondly, that he will give us some assurance that he does not see this role as being one which is an advocate for relaxation or change.
10:58
Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
My Lord. four three, six in my name. These two amendments relate to one of the specific functions just just elaborated by the noble Lord. Lord Moylan 135 creates in clause for a specific duty on the Commissioner of ensuring the paperwork relating to individual cases is, in order of the right quality, so that the process can proceed as the amendment would sit, and I quote, the paperwork should be present, complete and of a sufficient standard.
Amendment 436 creates in clause 16 an elaboration of what that duty means in practice, that is, to request further and improve paperwork if it's not in order, and in particular, if any doubt exists over whether eligibility criteria are met. Now, why is these are these amendments necessary? It's a very specific issue, clearly, but the commissioner has a function, inter alia, to receive documents, refer cases and so on. And that is obviously crucial to the working of this process.
Now, as described, that function implicitly of course, includes ensuring the documentation is in order. But it does not make it is not made explicit anywhere in the bill. And the purpose of these amendments is to make that requirement explicit and to create a clear legal duty on the Commissioner to ensure the paperwork is of a sufficient standard. Now, is this just a paperwork requirement, a process requirement? No it isn't. And why is it not? Well, first, the commissioner has a mandatory duty to pass paperwork to the Assisted Dying Review panel.
The existing duty exists requires only that the paperwork exists, not that it be of the right quality. And that is self-evidently a weakness. Second, the panel itself has to be satisfied that the various eligibility and other requirements are in fact met, and the basis on which they do that is the documentation. And how can it be confident it is taking a good decision if there is no process to ensure that the documentation itself is of the right quality? Thirdly, there's obviously a particular issue with all of this.
If, as seems at least possible from earlier discussions, face to face elements of this process are weakened or eliminated. In that case, you are entirely relying on the quality of the documentation, and it is even more vital that the paperwork be of good quality. Fourth, the paperwork duty, a good paperwork duty increases the chances of any systemic problems in the process becoming visible to the commissioner. For example, if certain doctors, certain medical practitioners consistently produce poor quality paperwork, the specific duty makes it much more likely that this is going to be picked up.
Fifth, suppose there is a criminal investigation following any of these cases. In that case, obviously the the the patient, the person receiving assistance. However we wish to describe it, the patient will not be around to give evidence and the paperwork will be the only basis on which an investigation can proceed. Again, it must be of high quality. And finally, my Lords, there's there's plenty of evidence in real in the real world of why the paperwork, getting the paperwork right is so important.
We in the UK, in our normal bureaucratic existence and dealing with the state constantly, I think, find errors in our paperwork. I certainly find it in relation to to me. How much more so will it be for people who have had psychological treatment for a range of different providers, different hospitals, different medical practitioners, perhaps in different parts of the country? It's very easy to see how errors can creep in to this process, and all the more necessary to have a clear duty overseas.
In other jurisdictions, there's a there's a very long list of problems with the paperwork in in the Netherlands, a recent government evaluation showed that up to 15% of assisted deaths were not even recorded in the official systems because of some paperwork error. 1 or 2% of cases in the Netherlands were described as, quote, not careful. In Belgium, a range of investigations have showed specifically reporting problems with poor documentation, incomplete assessments, missing information, and in Canada there have been many investigations into the paperwork, most recently last year, an investigation based on FOI requests uncovered significant systemic problems with the British Columbia made oversight system.
It found 208 2833 reporting issues and completion errors for just 2767 deaths. That is more than one error per case. There's an eligibility error rate of nearly 5%, and despite all these issues, only a handful of referrals were made to regulatory bodies and to the police. And in passing, it's perhaps worth noting that the internal documents released under this FOI reveal that one of the officials in the system recommended that the Canadian Oversight Unit should not be, quote, overly strict in enforcing the paperwork protocols because this quote may discourage providers from offering assisted dying.
My Lords, I hope I've said enough to to illustrate why it is so crucial that there is a specific legal duty to get this paperwork right. I don't think my two amendments raise huge issues of principle. They simply will make sure that a process which perhaps we will one day have legislated for, though perhaps not, that this process is done properly and risks that we have repeatedly discussed over our ten days of discussion are reduced to the minimum. And I hope that the Noble and learned law might look at these amendments on that basis and consider their helpful.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. If I may speak to my amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may speak to my amendment 144, which is related to my noble friend Lord Frost, who has made many of the points I was about to many of the points I was about to make. And if I just may add to what Lord Frost has just said, he's used the word paperwork all the all the way through what he's just saying and the importance of paperwork. Well, I would make over and above what the noble Lord has just said, what the noble Lord has just said, that the NHS has a notorious reputation with paperwork.
How many times have you heard about the loss of patients medical records? And indeed, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, that the medical records are inaccurate and many, many hours have been spent in this house. And when I was a health Minister, talk about the digitisation, digitisation of the NHS in terms of paperwork, my Lords, this is this bill is an excellent opportunity to say to the NHS or whoever takes responsible for this, when we go for the consultations, when people go for consultations, they are done digitally.
What I mean by that is you do not use a pen and paper. Doctors handwriting is notoriously difficult to read and that has to be then transcribed and digitised by a second party. And mistakes and errors happen, which is one of the reasons why there are so many areas in medical records. So I would just like to
Amendment 436 creates in clause 16 an elaboration of what that duty means in practice, that is, to request further and improve paperwork if it's not in order, and in particular, if any doubt exists over whether eligibility criteria are met. Now, why is these are these amendments necessary? It's a very specific issue, clearly, but the commissioner has a function, inter alia, to receive documents, refer cases and so on. And that is obviously crucial to the working of this process.
Now, as described, that function implicitly of course, includes ensuring the documentation is in order. But it does not make it is not made explicit anywhere in the bill. And the purpose of these amendments is to make that requirement explicit and to create a clear legal duty on the Commissioner to ensure the paperwork is of a sufficient standard. Now, is this just a paperwork requirement, a process requirement? No it isn't. And why is it not? Well, first, the commissioner has a mandatory duty to pass paperwork to the Assisted Dying Review panel.
The existing duty exists requires only that the paperwork exists, not that it be of the right quality. And that is self-evidently a weakness. Second, the panel itself has to be satisfied that the various eligibility and other requirements are in fact met, and the basis on which they do that is the documentation. And how can it be confident it is taking a good decision if there is no process to ensure that the documentation itself is of the right quality? Thirdly, there's obviously a particular issue with all of this.
If, as seems at least possible from earlier discussions, face to face elements of this process are weakened or eliminated. In that case, you are entirely relying on the quality of the documentation, and it is even more vital that the paperwork be of good quality. Fourth, the paperwork duty, a good paperwork duty increases the chances of any systemic problems in the process becoming visible to the commissioner. For example, if certain doctors, certain medical practitioners consistently produce poor quality paperwork, the specific duty makes it much more likely that this is going to be picked up.
Fifth, suppose there is a criminal investigation following any of these cases. In that case, obviously the the the patient, the person receiving assistance. However we wish to describe it, the patient will not be around to give evidence and the paperwork will be the only basis on which an investigation can proceed. Again, it must be of high quality. And finally, my Lords, there's there's plenty of evidence in real in the real world of why the paperwork, getting the paperwork right is so important.
We in the UK, in our normal bureaucratic existence and dealing with the state constantly, I think, find errors in our paperwork. I certainly find it in relation to to me. How much more so will it be for people who have had psychological treatment for a range of different providers, different hospitals, different medical practitioners, perhaps in different parts of the country? It's very easy to see how errors can creep in to this process, and all the more necessary to have a clear duty overseas.
In other jurisdictions, there's a there's a very long list of problems with the paperwork in in the Netherlands, a recent government evaluation showed that up to 15% of assisted deaths were not even recorded in the official systems because of some paperwork error. 1 or 2% of cases in the Netherlands were described as, quote, not careful. In Belgium, a range of investigations have showed specifically reporting problems with poor documentation, incomplete assessments, missing information, and in Canada there have been many investigations into the paperwork, most recently last year, an investigation based on FOI requests uncovered significant systemic problems with the British Columbia made oversight system.
It found 208 2833 reporting issues and completion errors for just 2767 deaths. That is more than one error per case. There's an eligibility error rate of nearly 5%, and despite all these issues, only a handful of referrals were made to regulatory bodies and to the police. And in passing, it's perhaps worth noting that the internal documents released under this FOI reveal that one of the officials in the system recommended that the Canadian Oversight Unit should not be, quote, overly strict in enforcing the paperwork protocols because this quote may discourage providers from offering assisted dying.
My Lords, I hope I've said enough to to illustrate why it is so crucial that there is a specific legal duty to get this paperwork right. I don't think my two amendments raise huge issues of principle. They simply will make sure that a process which perhaps we will one day have legislated for, though perhaps not, that this process is done properly and risks that we have repeatedly discussed over our ten days of discussion are reduced to the minimum. And I hope that the Noble and learned law might look at these amendments on that basis and consider their helpful.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. If I may speak to my amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may speak to my amendment 144, which is related to my noble friend Lord Frost, who has made many of the points I was about to many of the points I was about to make. And if I just may add to what Lord Frost has just said, he's used the word paperwork all the all the way through what he's just saying and the importance of paperwork. Well, I would make over and above what the noble Lord has just said, what the noble Lord has just said, that the NHS has a notorious reputation with paperwork.
How many times have you heard about the loss of patients medical records? And indeed, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, that the medical records are inaccurate and many, many hours have been spent in this house. And when I was a health Minister, talk about the digitisation, digitisation of the NHS in terms of paperwork, my Lords, this is this bill is an excellent opportunity to say to the NHS or whoever takes responsible for this, when we go for the consultations, when people go for consultations, they are done digitally.
What I mean by that is you do not use a pen and paper. Doctors handwriting is notoriously difficult to read and that has to be then transcribed and digitised by a second party. And mistakes and errors happen, which is one of the reasons why there are so many areas in medical records. So I would just like to
11:06
-
say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, that we, this House, should insist in this bill, that it should insist in this bill, that it is done digitally, that when clinicians interview people who are vulnerable, that it is recorded vulnerable, that it is recorded there and then on a tablet, on an iPad, on a computer, which is then recorded instantly and therefore reduced the number of errors. So the paperwork is so important. But the paperwork is so important. But this is an opportunity for the NHS to step up to the plate and of all things, digitise the records for people making that decision to end their lives.
11:07
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
In this group, amendment 139 simply requires the Commissioner to report to Parliament. But in amendment 913, I've tried to ensure independence and freedom from bias of the commissioner and staff, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner, as a public figurehead of an assisted death regime, must be free of any whiff of conflict of interest or any perceived bias. Conflicts of interest can be direct, such as the Commissioner had shares in a provider of assisted deaths when increased deaths are profitable, but as the standards of Business Conduct Policy for NHS England points out, perceived conflicts of interest can also present problems.
All interests must be declared. NHS England's policy also states officers must be mindful of any situation where relationships may give rise to a perception that a loyalty, credit or responsibility is owed to another person or body, and it goes on to state it includes the fact that previous employment, directly or indirectly providing a service or product, could be seen to actually be an influential factor. So my noble friend Lord Weir has addressed the functions of the Commissioner.
I will not repeat those, but I just add a few points to them. Appointments to panels must not be biased to those sympathetic to assisted deaths, while also avoiding those who had publicly expressed some scepticism. The Commissioner is to review appeals. Bias can creep in here. Failure to follow statutory safeguards could be viewed leniently, and we've already heard examples of that from the noble Lord Lord Frost and highlighting failures in panels would actually reflect badly on the commissioner who had appointed them.
In reviewing and reporting on the operation, the whole regime could skew reporting because it's not clear which stakeholder groups will be consulted and which data will be collected and what will be omitted. And that, again, could leave room for bias. The amendment simply embodies the principles set out in the Cabinet Office's Governance Code on Public appointments. And I quote, there should be no conflicts of interest that would call into question their ability to perform the role. So can the noble Lady, the Minister confirm that these standards would be adhered to in any appointment? The governance code, my Lord, states that many conflicts of interest could be satisfactorily resolved and mitigated, given the Prime Minister much discretion.
Could a mitigation allow an assisted suicide organisations patron to serve as the Commissioner? This isn't purely hypothetical. In Belgium, the joint head of the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia was one of the leading proponents of the 2002 law there, and since then has euthanised more than 100 patients and has become somewhat of a celebrity. That reputation has caused controversy. We've already heard about under-reporting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for giving way isn't a critical difference when you're talking about conflicts of interest talking about conflicts of interest is in this case, this will be law. So this has been something that has been passed by Parliament. And so I been passed by Parliament. And so I don't believe in any public appointments where someone is supportive of a law of the land
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is deemed to be a conflict of interest. The point that I was trying to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The point that I was trying to make, and I'm sorry that the noble Lord perhaps hasn't or I haven't expressed it properly, is that there is a huge amount of discretion here, and the Commissioner will be the person who appoints the panels. So in a way, by assessing the work of the panels, the Commission will be marking his or her own homework. And that doesn't provide the independence that one would require. If I may go on. We heard about problems, too, that have occurred in New Zealand, where there have been difficulties.
That was in our select committee hearing that the noble Lord was present at. And I think these need to be taken just as a warning that we ensure there is independent transparency and lack of bias of the Commission through statutory safeguards to avoid the failures that have occurred in other countries. In the case of Mortier versus Belgium, the European Court. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lady, but I a little bit confused. It seems to me that there is considerable principled difference between expertise and conflict of interest, and that people who have been involved in assisted dying have expertise.
They don't necessarily have a conflict of interest. You can be a professional, as I'm sure the noble Lady will understand and be independent. So why? Why is expertise ruled out? I'm grateful to the noble Lady for that intervention because expertise is not ruled out. It is the way that the Commission functions that is important that that does not allow skewing and silencing. What I was going to go on to point out is that the Belgian commission, one of the commissioners, resigned because that person felt that whenever they were raising issues about problems in reporting, that they were being silenced and were unable to continue to provide ethically high standards, and that their own expertise was not being respected.
I would be grateful if I could just continue for a moment, because I am not trying to filibuster, and I would like to make that absolutely clear. Following the extremely unpleasant, vicious comments that have been made about me, both in the media and in very aggressive emails that have been sent to me. So if I may continue, I would be most grateful. So I'm simply asking whether a commissioner with a financial interest in an assisted death business, whatever that is, however that is commissioned, is actually truly independent and there seems to be no requirement for the appointment to be scrutinised by a Committee of Parliament or for a register of interest to be published.
But I'm sure that that would happen because that is a normal course of action in this country. But the equality impact assessment seemed to be silence on this. The noble Lord, Lord Garnier, has referred to the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, in relation to appointments. So I will not repeat that either. But this Commissioner's post appears as written to be in the gift of the Prime Minister, and there doesn't appear to be verified impartiality in terms of the exercise of the functions.
Given the great importance of this role, and the problem that if this role does not work well, public confidence in the system would be lost.
All interests must be declared. NHS England's policy also states officers must be mindful of any situation where relationships may give rise to a perception that a loyalty, credit or responsibility is owed to another person or body, and it goes on to state it includes the fact that previous employment, directly or indirectly providing a service or product, could be seen to actually be an influential factor. So my noble friend Lord Weir has addressed the functions of the Commissioner.
I will not repeat those, but I just add a few points to them. Appointments to panels must not be biased to those sympathetic to assisted deaths, while also avoiding those who had publicly expressed some scepticism. The Commissioner is to review appeals. Bias can creep in here. Failure to follow statutory safeguards could be viewed leniently, and we've already heard examples of that from the noble Lord Lord Frost and highlighting failures in panels would actually reflect badly on the commissioner who had appointed them.
In reviewing and reporting on the operation, the whole regime could skew reporting because it's not clear which stakeholder groups will be consulted and which data will be collected and what will be omitted. And that, again, could leave room for bias. The amendment simply embodies the principles set out in the Cabinet Office's Governance Code on Public appointments. And I quote, there should be no conflicts of interest that would call into question their ability to perform the role. So can the noble Lady, the Minister confirm that these standards would be adhered to in any appointment? The governance code, my Lord, states that many conflicts of interest could be satisfactorily resolved and mitigated, given the Prime Minister much discretion.
Could a mitigation allow an assisted suicide organisations patron to serve as the Commissioner? This isn't purely hypothetical. In Belgium, the joint head of the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia was one of the leading proponents of the 2002 law there, and since then has euthanised more than 100 patients and has become somewhat of a celebrity. That reputation has caused controversy. We've already heard about under-reporting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for giving way isn't a critical difference when you're talking about conflicts of interest talking about conflicts of interest is in this case, this will be law. So this has been something that has been passed by Parliament. And so I been passed by Parliament. And so I don't believe in any public appointments where someone is supportive of a law of the land
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is deemed to be a conflict of interest. The point that I was trying to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The point that I was trying to make, and I'm sorry that the noble Lord perhaps hasn't or I haven't expressed it properly, is that there is a huge amount of discretion here, and the Commissioner will be the person who appoints the panels. So in a way, by assessing the work of the panels, the Commission will be marking his or her own homework. And that doesn't provide the independence that one would require. If I may go on. We heard about problems, too, that have occurred in New Zealand, where there have been difficulties.
That was in our select committee hearing that the noble Lord was present at. And I think these need to be taken just as a warning that we ensure there is independent transparency and lack of bias of the Commission through statutory safeguards to avoid the failures that have occurred in other countries. In the case of Mortier versus Belgium, the European Court. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lady, but I a little bit confused. It seems to me that there is considerable principled difference between expertise and conflict of interest, and that people who have been involved in assisted dying have expertise.
They don't necessarily have a conflict of interest. You can be a professional, as I'm sure the noble Lady will understand and be independent. So why? Why is expertise ruled out? I'm grateful to the noble Lady for that intervention because expertise is not ruled out. It is the way that the Commission functions that is important that that does not allow skewing and silencing. What I was going to go on to point out is that the Belgian commission, one of the commissioners, resigned because that person felt that whenever they were raising issues about problems in reporting, that they were being silenced and were unable to continue to provide ethically high standards, and that their own expertise was not being respected.
I would be grateful if I could just continue for a moment, because I am not trying to filibuster, and I would like to make that absolutely clear. Following the extremely unpleasant, vicious comments that have been made about me, both in the media and in very aggressive emails that have been sent to me. So if I may continue, I would be most grateful. So I'm simply asking whether a commissioner with a financial interest in an assisted death business, whatever that is, however that is commissioned, is actually truly independent and there seems to be no requirement for the appointment to be scrutinised by a Committee of Parliament or for a register of interest to be published.
But I'm sure that that would happen because that is a normal course of action in this country. But the equality impact assessment seemed to be silence on this. The noble Lord, Lord Garnier, has referred to the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, in relation to appointments. So I will not repeat that either. But this Commissioner's post appears as written to be in the gift of the Prime Minister, and there doesn't appear to be verified impartiality in terms of the exercise of the functions.
Given the great importance of this role, and the problem that if this role does not work well, public confidence in the system would be lost.
11:15
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
My Lord. >> My Lord. >> My my remarks follow on actually very usefully from those of the noble Lady Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. And she's made some points I was going to make, so I won't make them. But I want to make some of this. I do think that we should consider the inter action between the rather murky world of politics and the role of the commissioner, and I wouldn't raise that issue if this role wasn't entirely, as I understand it, a political gift of the Prime Minister, effectively a patronage office.
And we all surely know the problems that that can create. I mean, it's been rather vividly illustrated in recent months. So I just want to probe what happens if this goes wrong, or rather, how can we stop it going wrong in the first place? Because I do think that there is genuine concerns about a lack of accountability and transparency around the appointment process of the commissioner. And so for that reason, I added my name to the to amendment 126, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, who is unable to be here today.
But I think he's spot on to suggest, or one of his suggestions is that the appointment is accompanied by a public statement by the Prime Minister. Whoever the Prime Minister is attesting to the suitability, the independence and the neutrality of the candidate, the Prime Minister is ultimately held to account for this appointment and it's clear why they've made it, and so on and so on. The commissioner is a crucial role. Commissioner will have the power to both run and monitor this service.
Yet the bill seems to leave the commissioner's role open to self-definition, appointed by a Prime Minister. And that's it. We're all meant to trust it. And I don't want to be cynical, but I do think the question of independence and neutrality is important because this is a controversial and polarising issue. And if we didn't think it was, we only have to look at the rather testy atmosphere every Friday in this house, let alone on the airwaves in between. So I think we owe it to the public that they feel that they can trust the process.
If this bill is made law. And I think that we have to ask what happens if a partisan figure is chosen? How can that be addressed democratically? What is the process? If there's a problem with the conduct of this commissioner, who is accountable for that? And that's one of the reasons I've added my name to amendment 913A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, which seeks ways that anyone with concerns about the conduct of the Commissioner can make representations both to the Prime Minister and the amendment seeks to probe the process by which the Commissioner can be held accountable for their conduct.
And that takes me back to neutrality and independence. So let's consider if we leave this appointment, as the bill seems to, to the Prime Minister, and they're given complete discretion about who to appoint, how will we protect the role from political controversy, from being seen as possibly partisan? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner, won't want to compromise the role in that way, I'm sure. But therefore, maybe some of these amendments, I think, will be helpful in insulating it from any accusation of bias.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is she not concerned, as I am, that we are conflating expertise that we are conflating expertise with bias? People think that because somebody is expert, they're independent. It doesn't necessarily independent. It doesn't necessarily follow. There could be people who are expert, but at the same time they're very biased in terms of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they're very biased in terms of their approach to any subject. And I think that is absolutely, self-evidently true. And in the real world. Let me just put it that way. And I so I want I wanted to just note that the present Prime Minister is himself not personally neutral. Personally, I don't mean personally. And indeed he promised, as we now well know, Esther Rantzen, that assisted dying would be made legal. Although, by the way, that was not a promise made to the British electorate, and it was not in the manifesto, but it was certainly made in public with much, you know, singing and dancing.
Would the Prime Minister's personal views influence who he chose as a commissioner? Now, you might think that's far too cynical. I'm being grubby, right? That's fair enough, right? But I want to know, is there anything in the bill that guards against such grubby behaviour? Because if anyone thinks there's no grubby behaviour in politics, they need to get out more. The commissioner, if the commissioner is perceived. Oh, sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may again, this is something. This is a post which will only happen if there's the law will only happen if there's the law has been passed by the Parliament, and I'm not aware that perhaps a noble Lady can help me. If there's noble Lady can help me. If there's any other public appointment process which says that someone process which says that someone cannot be in favour of the law, that they will be in charge of implementing, is is is the noble implementing, is is is the noble Lady aware of any others where that is the case? Or is the noble Lady saying that this should be the only example where someone can't be in favour of the law of the land and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the job that they've been appointed to do? I maybe want to clarify. Sorry, let me just get back on that one let me just get back on that one point. I just want to clarify. I don't anticipate that those people who have reservations about who have reservations about assisted dying will be queuing up to be the commissioner, as it happens. So I'm not arguing at all that the commissioner could not be an enthusiast. But what happens if they become an activist and an they become an activist and an advocate for it? And and mission creep follows? That's very different.
I am fine, you know somebody who says, I voted for it, somebody in this House might well be that person and they might have disagreed with me. I'm not impugning their. But what happens? How do you stop someone if they say, great, I'm the commission, I'm now in charge of monitoring this and so on. We've had good examples, so I don't want to repeat them. The noble Lord Lord Moylan wants to interrupt or not. No no, no, it's past right. OK, alright. I'm. I'm trying to finish.
I'm trying to finish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. I wonder whether I might whether
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder whether I might whether the noble Lady might agree with me in response to Lord Markham's question that senior and significant public appointments significant public appointments always involve an independent panel assessment panel making a assessment panel making a recommendation. But moreover, they also involve select committees of this House or and or including the House of Commons to take evidence. And there are recent examples. Only a few months ago, in July, in fact, last year where my successor was questioned interminably, I would have thought if I if I can exaggerate a little bit here by the Women and Equalities Committee over a small donation made years earlier to a campaign group and and did not win approval from the committee, presumably on that basis.
So parliamentary scrutiny and or the independent panel are profoundly important. But the noble Lady agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prerequisites. I actually think that was a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I actually think that was a very helpful intervention, and I think helpful intervention, and I think that we can therefore see that the process of appointing the commissioner should not just simply commissioner should not just simply be in the gift of the Prime Minister, and that there are processes and I think we've processes and I think we've illustrated that and then the the difficulties in relation to accusations of neutrality or partial partiality and so on in that process will come up.
But at the moment, there's nothing in this bill that would allow any of that to have come up before the appointment. And then just I'm now will will finish. I'm suggesting that there are a range of amendments in this group that the noble and learned Lord might want to look at carefully and accept some of, so that the role can be insulated from party politics or accusations of of of advocacy and all of those kind of speculative what if this goes wrong? What if that goes wrong? Maybe nothing would go wrong.
But if something does go wrong with the conduct of the commissioner, or there seem to be actually acting as an advocate activist, there is nothing in the bill that would mean that Parliament could do anything about it. We would just be stuck with it. And so can I ask the noble and learned Lord, what checks does he see for impartiality and guardrails against activism in the Commissioner's choice and role? What process will the Commissioner will there be to ensure a Commissioner's impartiality in their role, even if not in their personal their views? How can we make that guaranteed and what will happen? How can we hold conduct to the highest account? At the moment, it seems to me there is no mechanism in the bill to do so.
And without that formal oversight, I would say that it's unsafe. The way the bill has set out appointing a commissioner, and it just should be relooked at.
And we all surely know the problems that that can create. I mean, it's been rather vividly illustrated in recent months. So I just want to probe what happens if this goes wrong, or rather, how can we stop it going wrong in the first place? Because I do think that there is genuine concerns about a lack of accountability and transparency around the appointment process of the commissioner. And so for that reason, I added my name to the to amendment 126, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, who is unable to be here today.
But I think he's spot on to suggest, or one of his suggestions is that the appointment is accompanied by a public statement by the Prime Minister. Whoever the Prime Minister is attesting to the suitability, the independence and the neutrality of the candidate, the Prime Minister is ultimately held to account for this appointment and it's clear why they've made it, and so on and so on. The commissioner is a crucial role. Commissioner will have the power to both run and monitor this service.
Yet the bill seems to leave the commissioner's role open to self-definition, appointed by a Prime Minister. And that's it. We're all meant to trust it. And I don't want to be cynical, but I do think the question of independence and neutrality is important because this is a controversial and polarising issue. And if we didn't think it was, we only have to look at the rather testy atmosphere every Friday in this house, let alone on the airwaves in between. So I think we owe it to the public that they feel that they can trust the process.
If this bill is made law. And I think that we have to ask what happens if a partisan figure is chosen? How can that be addressed democratically? What is the process? If there's a problem with the conduct of this commissioner, who is accountable for that? And that's one of the reasons I've added my name to amendment 913A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, which seeks ways that anyone with concerns about the conduct of the Commissioner can make representations both to the Prime Minister and the amendment seeks to probe the process by which the Commissioner can be held accountable for their conduct.
And that takes me back to neutrality and independence. So let's consider if we leave this appointment, as the bill seems to, to the Prime Minister, and they're given complete discretion about who to appoint, how will we protect the role from political controversy, from being seen as possibly partisan? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner, won't want to compromise the role in that way, I'm sure. But therefore, maybe some of these amendments, I think, will be helpful in insulating it from any accusation of bias.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is she not concerned, as I am, that we are conflating expertise that we are conflating expertise with bias? People think that because somebody is expert, they're independent. It doesn't necessarily independent. It doesn't necessarily follow. There could be people who are expert, but at the same time they're very biased in terms of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they're very biased in terms of their approach to any subject. And I think that is absolutely, self-evidently true. And in the real world. Let me just put it that way. And I so I want I wanted to just note that the present Prime Minister is himself not personally neutral. Personally, I don't mean personally. And indeed he promised, as we now well know, Esther Rantzen, that assisted dying would be made legal. Although, by the way, that was not a promise made to the British electorate, and it was not in the manifesto, but it was certainly made in public with much, you know, singing and dancing.
Would the Prime Minister's personal views influence who he chose as a commissioner? Now, you might think that's far too cynical. I'm being grubby, right? That's fair enough, right? But I want to know, is there anything in the bill that guards against such grubby behaviour? Because if anyone thinks there's no grubby behaviour in politics, they need to get out more. The commissioner, if the commissioner is perceived. Oh, sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may again, this is something. This is a post which will only happen if there's the law will only happen if there's the law has been passed by the Parliament, and I'm not aware that perhaps a noble Lady can help me. If there's noble Lady can help me. If there's any other public appointment process which says that someone process which says that someone cannot be in favour of the law, that they will be in charge of implementing, is is is the noble implementing, is is is the noble Lady aware of any others where that is the case? Or is the noble Lady saying that this should be the only example where someone can't be in favour of the law of the land and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the job that they've been appointed to do? I maybe want to clarify. Sorry, let me just get back on that one let me just get back on that one point. I just want to clarify. I don't anticipate that those people who have reservations about who have reservations about assisted dying will be queuing up to be the commissioner, as it happens. So I'm not arguing at all that the commissioner could not be an enthusiast. But what happens if they become an activist and an they become an activist and an advocate for it? And and mission creep follows? That's very different.
I am fine, you know somebody who says, I voted for it, somebody in this House might well be that person and they might have disagreed with me. I'm not impugning their. But what happens? How do you stop someone if they say, great, I'm the commission, I'm now in charge of monitoring this and so on. We've had good examples, so I don't want to repeat them. The noble Lord Lord Moylan wants to interrupt or not. No no, no, it's past right. OK, alright. I'm. I'm trying to finish.
I'm trying to finish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. I wonder whether I might whether
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder whether I might whether the noble Lady might agree with me in response to Lord Markham's question that senior and significant public appointments significant public appointments always involve an independent panel assessment panel making a assessment panel making a recommendation. But moreover, they also involve select committees of this House or and or including the House of Commons to take evidence. And there are recent examples. Only a few months ago, in July, in fact, last year where my successor was questioned interminably, I would have thought if I if I can exaggerate a little bit here by the Women and Equalities Committee over a small donation made years earlier to a campaign group and and did not win approval from the committee, presumably on that basis.
So parliamentary scrutiny and or the independent panel are profoundly important. But the noble Lady agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prerequisites. I actually think that was a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I actually think that was a very helpful intervention, and I think helpful intervention, and I think that we can therefore see that the process of appointing the commissioner should not just simply commissioner should not just simply be in the gift of the Prime Minister, and that there are processes and I think we've processes and I think we've illustrated that and then the the difficulties in relation to accusations of neutrality or partial partiality and so on in that process will come up.
But at the moment, there's nothing in this bill that would allow any of that to have come up before the appointment. And then just I'm now will will finish. I'm suggesting that there are a range of amendments in this group that the noble and learned Lord might want to look at carefully and accept some of, so that the role can be insulated from party politics or accusations of of of advocacy and all of those kind of speculative what if this goes wrong? What if that goes wrong? Maybe nothing would go wrong.
But if something does go wrong with the conduct of the commissioner, or there seem to be actually acting as an advocate activist, there is nothing in the bill that would mean that Parliament could do anything about it. We would just be stuck with it. And so can I ask the noble and learned Lord, what checks does he see for impartiality and guardrails against activism in the Commissioner's choice and role? What process will the Commissioner will there be to ensure a Commissioner's impartiality in their role, even if not in their personal their views? How can we make that guaranteed and what will happen? How can we hold conduct to the highest account? At the moment, it seems to me there is no mechanism in the bill to do so.
And without that formal oversight, I would say that it's unsafe. The way the bill has set out appointing a commissioner, and it just should be relooked at.
11:25
Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Deben (Conservative)
I have tried in the. >> Contributions I've made, which have been few, although I have in fact been present almost every moment of this bill. But I have moment of this bill. But I have tried to point out to the noble Lord those occasions when his actions can make a great deal of difference. And it does seem to me that this is one of those I have been pressed by the media to speak about this bill. I have refused every opportunity because I believe that this bill should be debated in this House, and there should be no attempt outside to make it difficult for us to say what we need to say in our proper carrying through of our business.
If I had appeared on the radio, I would have said that the problem that we are faced with is that there is so much in this bill that is uncertain, unexplained, leaving to Ministers, leaving to particular appointees that we do not know how this bill would work in practice. This is not a question of whether you're on the side of the bill or against it. It is we have a duty to make this bill work.
I don't like the bill, and I don't agree with the principle of it, but I'm not speaking here from either of those points of view. I'm speaking here to try to get this bill, a suitable bill to do the job, which the promoters want to do. And I much resent the way in which people attack that, as if one is behaving improperly. So can I take these? And the disgraceful behaviour attacking one of the most distinguished members of this House, who is knowledgeable and able, and has a history of fighting for the rights and the the kind of behaviour we should have for the terminally ill and the ill that needs palliative care is really a disgrace to this, and I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will apologise publicly for what has been said to the noble Lady, because it is unacceptable in.
So may I just say why this is the most important group perhaps, that we've had. There is very genuinely held concern outside about the mechanisms which will make this bill the safest bill there is. And the person who does this job is clearly not going to be somebody who is against the whole principle. Lord Markham is perfectly right. If this becomes the law, the law will be carried through. The question is, is the person who is going to do this job? A person who will command the respect and support of the nation as a whole, and the amendments which are before us are simply an attempt to find ways of making sure that that happens.
They are not suggesting that it should be somebody who's opposed to the principle. First of all, I can't imagine anybody applying for it. If you don't believe in the principle, I certainly am not going to apply for it myself. But the fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is it's going to be somebody who supports the bill and who's prepared to carry it through, but that person must have the respect of the public as a whole. And the appointment therefore becomes very important.
Now, I don't want to tread on very sad circumstances, but we haven't got a terribly good history about appointments in recent years on both sides of the House. So this is not a party political comment, so it makes it very important at this point to get this right. And there is no question of filibustering to say to the noble Lord that this is the heart of the problem. This is a bill which is supported in principle by many who are in the organisations who are going to carry it through, but it is opposed, in particular by all of them, because the bill hasn't met concerns they've got.
And if, if. Well, I'm sorry, the noble Lady may may grimace at this and I'm sorry she may grimace at it. But the fact is they have given a list of things that they would like to see put right. None of those so far have been properly addressed by the proponents of this bill, and that is a fundamental issue. And this is not about things that don't matter. These are the people that are going to be asked to carry this through.
And therefore, it's not unreasonable for those of us who want a good deal to say, please, can you meet each one of those demands, concerns so that we feel that the professions concerned are able properly to join in the carrying through of this bill? And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do give having referred, I'm sorry to pointed out the latest. I know I'm out of order, in fact,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I know I'm out of order, in fact, because I was not here at the beginning of this amendment. But I feel it is important to say to the feel it is important to say to the noble Lord that I was not grimacing at the point he was making. I'm going to continue with this point, going to continue with this point, because it is a general point that there was no there has been very there was no there has been very limited discussion on the amendment since I've come into the House.
If I had appeared on the radio, I would have said that the problem that we are faced with is that there is so much in this bill that is uncertain, unexplained, leaving to Ministers, leaving to particular appointees that we do not know how this bill would work in practice. This is not a question of whether you're on the side of the bill or against it. It is we have a duty to make this bill work.
I don't like the bill, and I don't agree with the principle of it, but I'm not speaking here from either of those points of view. I'm speaking here to try to get this bill, a suitable bill to do the job, which the promoters want to do. And I much resent the way in which people attack that, as if one is behaving improperly. So can I take these? And the disgraceful behaviour attacking one of the most distinguished members of this House, who is knowledgeable and able, and has a history of fighting for the rights and the the kind of behaviour we should have for the terminally ill and the ill that needs palliative care is really a disgrace to this, and I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will apologise publicly for what has been said to the noble Lady, because it is unacceptable in.
So may I just say why this is the most important group perhaps, that we've had. There is very genuinely held concern outside about the mechanisms which will make this bill the safest bill there is. And the person who does this job is clearly not going to be somebody who is against the whole principle. Lord Markham is perfectly right. If this becomes the law, the law will be carried through. The question is, is the person who is going to do this job? A person who will command the respect and support of the nation as a whole, and the amendments which are before us are simply an attempt to find ways of making sure that that happens.
They are not suggesting that it should be somebody who's opposed to the principle. First of all, I can't imagine anybody applying for it. If you don't believe in the principle, I certainly am not going to apply for it myself. But the fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is it's going to be somebody who supports the bill and who's prepared to carry it through, but that person must have the respect of the public as a whole. And the appointment therefore becomes very important.
Now, I don't want to tread on very sad circumstances, but we haven't got a terribly good history about appointments in recent years on both sides of the House. So this is not a party political comment, so it makes it very important at this point to get this right. And there is no question of filibustering to say to the noble Lord that this is the heart of the problem. This is a bill which is supported in principle by many who are in the organisations who are going to carry it through, but it is opposed, in particular by all of them, because the bill hasn't met concerns they've got.
And if, if. Well, I'm sorry, the noble Lady may may grimace at this and I'm sorry she may grimace at it. But the fact is they have given a list of things that they would like to see put right. None of those so far have been properly addressed by the proponents of this bill, and that is a fundamental issue. And this is not about things that don't matter. These are the people that are going to be asked to carry this through.
And therefore, it's not unreasonable for those of us who want a good deal to say, please, can you meet each one of those demands, concerns so that we feel that the professions concerned are able properly to join in the carrying through of this bill? And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do give having referred, I'm sorry to pointed out the latest. I know I'm out of order, in fact,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I know I'm out of order, in fact, because I was not here at the beginning of this amendment. But I feel it is important to say to the feel it is important to say to the noble Lord that I was not grimacing at the point he was making. I'm going to continue with this point, going to continue with this point, because it is a general point that there was no there has been very there was no there has been very limited discussion on the amendment since I've come into the House.
11:31
11:31
Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Deben (Conservative)
I think it perfectly right for the noble Lady to have intervened because I referred to her in my apology. I therefore want the noble Lord, who is proposing this bill, to face the three issues which are centred around these amendments, and I am dealing with these amendments. And I say to the whip, these amendments are trying to meet the genuine concerns of people who are not necessarily opposed to the bill. They want to make sure that this key person knows what his or her job is, is appointed in a way which the public can have confidence in and is in fact, not the harbinger of what has been called mission creep.
Now, those are three very simple things to ask for. And the thing that really worries me, and I say this directly to the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, is I cannot understand why at the beginning of this bill he didn't get up and say, we know there's a problem about the fact that it used to be thought that this bill had a judicial element in it, and it doesn't now, and I am prepared to look at seeing how to change that. Secondly, we know that the professional bodies have got real concerns, and I'm going to present my answers to those.
And thirdly, I do know that there's much in this bill that isn't specific enough, which is why the select committees have said that this bill is inappropriate and unacceptable in its present form. And I'll put those things right. Had he said those three things, we would have been a long way forward in this bill. And therefore, this bill is not being held up by filibustering. It's being held up by the fact that the people who are putting forward this bill are so determined that this bill will pass that they are not willing, it seems to me, to listen to the reasonable comments, even from people who have restrained themselves from entering into the beer garden, which they've outside.
Now, those are three very simple things to ask for. And the thing that really worries me, and I say this directly to the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, is I cannot understand why at the beginning of this bill he didn't get up and say, we know there's a problem about the fact that it used to be thought that this bill had a judicial element in it, and it doesn't now, and I am prepared to look at seeing how to change that. Secondly, we know that the professional bodies have got real concerns, and I'm going to present my answers to those.
And thirdly, I do know that there's much in this bill that isn't specific enough, which is why the select committees have said that this bill is inappropriate and unacceptable in its present form. And I'll put those things right. Had he said those three things, we would have been a long way forward in this bill. And therefore, this bill is not being held up by filibustering. It's being held up by the fact that the people who are putting forward this bill are so determined that this bill will pass that they are not willing, it seems to me, to listen to the reasonable comments, even from people who have restrained themselves from entering into the beer garden, which they've outside.
11:34
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, yeah, absolutely. >> I'm going.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm going. To speak to two amendments which I have put down in this group. They I have put down in this group. They go to the practice in operation 430 and 434. May I introduce them? However, by making this point, I was one of the seven people fortunate enough to be identified in the observer a couple of weeks ago as having put down a lot of amendments, contrary to what the observer suggested, and indeed quite numerous hostile messages I received either by letter or email, these amendments, together with all the others I've put down, except for two which relate to the victims of industrial disease.
All my amendments were put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales, and by the clad group clad at King's College London, the latter, for those who weren't here the other week, are a group of distinguished psychiatrist, psychologist, social scientist and lawyer with particular interest in this and related issues. And they want to see them and the Law Society, they are neutral on the principle of the bill, but they want to see a safe and effective bill.
And my two amendments are, together with others I put down, are aimed at that 430. Some will be pleased to see, others will not actually is for a streamlined non panel basis. Can I just explain it? It requires the insertion of a new clause. This section applies where the commissioner receives the first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm going. To speak to two amendments which I have put down in this group. They I have put down in this group. They go to the practice in operation 430 and 434. May I introduce them? However, by making this point, I was one of the seven people fortunate enough to be identified in the observer a couple of weeks ago as having put down a lot of amendments, contrary to what the observer suggested, and indeed quite numerous hostile messages I received either by letter or email, these amendments, together with all the others I've put down, except for two which relate to the victims of industrial disease.
All my amendments were put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales, and by the clad group clad at King's College London, the latter, for those who weren't here the other week, are a group of distinguished psychiatrist, psychologist, social scientist and lawyer with particular interest in this and related issues. And they want to see them and the Law Society, they are neutral on the principle of the bill, but they want to see a safe and effective bill.
And my two amendments are, together with others I put down, are aimed at that 430. Some will be pleased to see, others will not actually is for a streamlined non panel basis. Can I just explain it? It requires the insertion of a new clause. This section applies where the commissioner receives the first