Baroness Keeley (Lab)

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my Amendment 483, which would ensure simply that in-person hearings remain the default when assessing applications under the Bill, with remote evidence via video or audio link used only where extraordinary circumstances make an in-person hearing wholly impracticable. Given the gravity of the decisions involved, it is essential that scrutiny is of the highest standard. An in-person hearing allows the panel to observe the applicant fully, including their demeanour and interactions, and to look for any signs of pressure. This cannot be reliably assessed over a video link, and certainly not over the phone. Indeed, California’s assisted dying law requires assessments of coercion or undue influence to take place outside the presence of any other person, a safeguard that remote evidence cannot guarantee. The Civil Justice Council’s review of remote hearings during the Covid pandemic found that the majority of respondents considered remote hearings to be worse than in-person hearings overall and less effective in facilitating participation, a critical component of procedural justice. Many respondents found remote hearings tiring, difficult to follow and more prone to misunderstanding. The Civil Justice Council found that nearly 13% of participants in remote hearings experienced significant technical difficulties, and in a process as sensitive as this one, even a small risk of technical or technological failure is a risk too far. There is also a contradiction in the Bill as drafted. It requires live evidence while simultaneously allowing pre-recorded testimony, so that a short, pre-recorded voice note could in theory constitute the entirety of an applicant’s oral evidence, with no opportunity for questioning from the panel, and that cannot be an adequate safeguard.