Baroness Merron (Lab)

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate that we have had today. In keeping my comments limited to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns, I turn first to Amendments 171A and 174A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. The duty outlined within these amendments may prove difficult for doctors to discharge as they are ambiguously drafted and use undefined terms such as “religious, cultural or sex-based” barriers. It is also a mandatory duty that does not afford discretion to the doctor to refuse unreasonable requests. The duty to appoint an advocate conflicts with Clause 22. It is unclear how these proposed advocates would be appointed or trained, or what their role or responsibilities would be. Furthermore, your Lordships’ Committee may note that where a person has religious, cultural or sex-based barriers, the amendment would also require such a person to be provided with an advocate who has training in and experience of relevant safeguarding issues and must be the same sex as the person seeking assistance. Introducing a more extensive mandatory duty for the provision of adjustments, including an advocate, may give rise to workability issues, as the cohort of advocates meeting these criteria could be very limited and may result in a person being delayed or unable to take part in a preliminary discussion.