Contribution
My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group, two of which stand in my name. The third is Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which I have co-signed and will touch on briefly now.
Amendment 128 is essentially probing in nature. The Bill lists the principal functions of the commissioner—we do not take particular exception to that—but does not outline their specific duties, so we feel that there is a bit of a gap at present and are probing whether the duties are correct and whether the commissioner has a role in ensuring effective oversight. I look forward to hearing the response of the Bill’s sponsor on that.
I move on to Amendment 129, following on from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. When I arrived today I did not anticipate that she would be my warm-up act in relation to the amendment—I thank her for her remarks. The amendment essentially deals with whether the commissioner should be required to be either a senior judge or a retired judge. In part it also has a slightly probing quality, and again I will listen to the remarks of the Bill’s sponsor. Given where the passage of the Bill has gone so far and where it might land—the situation is slightly fluid—and although I appreciate that, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has made suggestions on how we could inject a level of judicial introduction to the panels, we will probably be keen to press this on Report if the issue is not resolved and we are left with the current situation.
The reason for that is that when the Bill was introduced in the Commons, one of its core elements was the judicial function and, indeed, judges on the panels. That was one of the great selling points of the supposed—and slightly self-proclaimed, I have to say—safest Bill in the world. But that position has been resiled from and, although I am sure that the Bill’s sponsor will give reasons for it, we have moved away from that core element. If we do not have that core element of a judge on the panel, do we leave a situation in which the commissioner has to be either a senior serving judge or a retired judge? Would that create a veneer of judicial impact when the core element has been taken out?
That is all the more appropriate when we look at the functions that have been listed for the commissioner, of which there are five under Clause 4(4). Paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to “receiving documents” and compiling a list of eligible panel members. It is hard to see why those functions, which are essentially administrative in nature, would require a level of judicial input. Similarly, paragraph (c) relates to
“making arrangements in relation to such panels”.
Again, that function lies largely within administrative competence rather than requiring any element of judicial quality.
The one area that does touch on that, as has been highlighted, is paragraph (d), which talks about the reconsideration of cases, but cases are not to be reconsidered on their own merits. The Bill’s sponsor in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, said that the commissioner is
“not acting as a judge”,
so there is a query about the level of judicial impact even of paragraph (d). Finally, under paragraph (e) there will be a monitoring role, particularly as regards medical statistics. There is a question mark in relation to that. If we are looking for somebody to undertake that role, which I think was initially put within the remit of the Chief Medical Officer, it seems to me that a medical professional is much better suited to it. There are queries about the applicability and whether we are simply creating a façade of judicial involvement by having the requirements currently in the Bill.
My Amendment 496C would afford a person, if they desire it, the opportunity of a hearing before the commissioner, rather than their case being decided by a paper hearing. That would cover aspects such as someone being registered disabled under the Act, the availability of communication, cognitive impairment and mental distress, in the interests of justice.