Baroness O’Loan (CB)

My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, clarify for me the impact of Amendment 290 and whether it deals with matters of coercive control and economic abuse effectively for the purposes of the legislation? I ask this because Amendment 290 would remove “including coercive control and financial abuse” from the Bill. The same principle applies to Amendment 366, while Amendment 931 would remove the requirement for members of a panel to receive training on coercive control and financial abuse. Even taking into account the Domestic Abuse Act, which I will come back to in a moment, there is a difference between coercion and pressure and coercive control and abuse. It is for that reason that I support the comments previously made about, for example, Kim Leadbeater in the Commons being pleased to support mandated training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, and the Health Minister in the Commons Committee noting that the amendment would require training regulations to include “mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse”,—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/25; col. 1212.] which clearly would ramp up the requirement. However, the definition of domestic abuse in Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 refers to behaviour in the context of personal relationships—persons who are connected—and there is a list of the persons who are connected. Section 1(4) of the Act does not cover those who are not personally connected but who may be capable of having enormous influence upon people on behalf of those who are. I think, for example, of financial advisers, lawyers and even doctors, people like that, who may be able to put pressure on people, and we have seen situations in which such pressure has been brought to bear. Does the noble and learned Lord consider that the situations in which pressure may be brought to bear by someone not personally connected should be otherwise provided for? This group also contains amendments to Clauses 10 and 13, the provisions in relation to the situation in which a doctor is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor. There are provisions in Amendments 332, 418 and 419 for a further referral if a doctor is unable or unwilling to continue. His reasons for unwillingness could include ethical concerns or suspicions of undue influence on the patient. Despite the fact that there is a provision that he can seek specialist advice on this issue, there may be a situation in which the doctor will simply withdraw from the process. The single additional referral was approved in the other place to protect the patient, but these amendments would enable doctor shopping to occur. We will come back to that in group 44. Moreover, if a doctor withdraws from completing the process because of suspicions of possible or undue influence, the reason must surely be recorded. Amendment 405 would remove from the Bill the requirement to have regard to “language and literacy barriers”, replacing it with the new more general requirement to “take all reasonable steps to ensure … effective communication”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained during the previous debate the extent to which people with a disability have complex needs, which must be satisfied to enable understanding. The inclusion of “all reasonable steps” et cetera introduces a far less specific test, and consideration must be given to setting standards for the level of communication which is required. I have to ask the noble and learned Lord: does this amendment inadvertently disadvantage those with specific learning difficulties and similar vulnerable groups?