Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to several of my noble friend’s amendments and I would like to congratulate him on finding a solution that could allow the Bill to meet one of the sponsors’ original aspirations. The impact of Amendments 25 and 120 are many. One that may be attractive to the Committee would be that it would considerably shorten the Bill, as several clauses would be removed and hours of debate would probably become unnecessary.
The Bill states that it will
“allow adults who are terminally ill … to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life”
and refers to eligibility for
“lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life”.
The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary defines suicide as
“deliberately causing one’s own death”
and assisting suicide as
“the act of helping a patient to commit suicide by giving them the means … to do so”.
The Office for National Statistics similarly defines suicides as
“deaths resulting from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over”.
Clause 32 on the criminal liability for providing assistance explicitly references the Suicide Act 1961, providing that assistance carried out in accordance with this Bill will be exempt from that Act’s offence of assisting suicide. This reinforces that the subject of the legislation under consideration is assisted suicide.
I am aware that many people would prefer the term “assisted dying” because of the stigma associated with the term “suicide”. The Bill rather contradicts itself by adopting the term “assisted dying” while attempting to modify these other statutory provisions that concern assisted suicide. That creates both conceptual and legal ambiguity. If Parliament is being asked to authorise assisted suicide, then it follows that such decisions fall within the proper domain of the courts. For that reason, among others, I support my noble Lord, Lord Carlile’s amendment that would replace the assisted dying review panel with a court-supervised process.
Amendment 120 appropriately moves decision-making from the medical to the legal sphere. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment; it is an act with profound societal implications, and it therefore requires, I suggest, judicial rather than clinical oversight. For that reason, I believe that it does not belong in the National Health Service. Under the proposed model, doctors would continue to provide expert medical evidence confirming diagnosis and prognosis, but the final authorisation would rest with a judge. That judicial scrutiny provides a stronger safeguard against errors, and enhances transparency and public confidence in the system by placing responsibility for these irreversible decisions in the courts, where I believe they properly belong.
Concerns about capacity in the courts, or potential delay and cost, do not outweigh the need for robust safeguards when decisions of life and death are involved. The appropriate response is to streamline court processes, not to lower the level of scrutiny. The same issues of capacity in taking on a new stream of work would, of course, apply in the NHS. A judge would provide a more independent assessment of an individual application than a panel, which is likely to comprise people who have chosen to do that work and have no track record of dealing with issues such as undue influence. It is regrettable that the other place abandoned judicial oversight in favour of an assisted dying review panel and commissioner, thus seriously weakening the safeguards that were originally envisaged. The assisted dying review panel is not, in its current form, fit for purpose. Its composition does not provide sufficient safeguards for vulnerable individuals, and there is insufficient clarity on how it includes expertise in palliative care, safeguarding and decision-making capacity. A court model would be preferable; without it, the panel would need to be substantially strengthened.
I also strongly believe that, without guaranteed access to a comprehensive multi-disciplinary specialist assessment of palliative, psychological and social care needs, neither judicial scrutiny nor an expert panel would be able reliably to identify inappropriate requests for an assisted death. Those preliminary assessments are the most essential safeguards to ensure that treatable sources of distress, or modifiable psychosocial factors, are considered before an informed decision can be made, both by the individual concerned and by the decision-makers. We will debate specialist multi-disciplinary assessments in the next group of amendments, and I look forward to returning to that.
I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Carlile that seek to broaden the scope of safeguards referred to in Clause 1. At present, the Bill limits those safeguards to Clauses 8 to 30, which cover only the procedural steps. My noble friend’s amendments would extend the safeguard requirements to the whole of the Bill, ensuring that every substantive provision—not just the procedural elements—must be complied with before assistance to die can be lawfully provided.
I also support my noble friend’s Amendment 69 to strengthen the definition of “a terminal illness”. The amendment clarifies that a terminal illness must be
“an inevitably progressive disease which cannot be halted”.
The inclusion of “halted” is important; it ensures that eligibility is limited to conditions for which the disease trajectory cannot be stabilised or slowed through available interventions.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to two of the amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for meeting me in relation to his proposals under Amendment 120.
This group also contains related Amendment 116, which would introduce the capacity test that the noble Lord expects the court to use. Within that amendment, in the clear and settled intention part of that capacity test, is the introduction of the phrase “undue influence or coercion”. That test is different from the rest of the Bill, which uses “dishonesty, coercion or pressure”. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, as he has outlined, that undue influence has a particular meaning in civil law and is presumed within certain relationships.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Baroness used the phrase “moral pressure”. I mentioned in my speech that this is a fundamental change. If Clause 3 has gone, not by way of clause stand part, then actually, “pressure” has now gone from the test here. We now have “undue influence or coercion”, not “dishonesty, coercion and pressure”. Does she have any view—I mentioned domestic abuse victims—on whether that makes any change to the safety of the Bill for disabled people?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
Oh, absolutely: I think pressure is something incredibly important that we have to assess. Certainly, from the huge number of disabled people I have spoken to, pressure comes in many different ways, and it is very difficult to detect. If we do not take that seriously, I think people will be coerced into thinking that this is their only option, rather than that they have a range of options. That is picked up in some of my other amendments, but I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.
We talked about the equality impact assessment. We need to look at the impacts on the Crown Court, on health and education committees and on children with SEND, and I think we probably need another version of the equality impact assessment to enable us to make the best decision on the way forward for the Bill. I am minded to support my noble friend Lord Carlile, because I think that what he proposes is much better than the panel currently in the Bill.
Mindful of time, I will leave my last comment to the Medical Defence Union, the leading indemnifiers of UK doctors, which gave evidence to the Commons Bill Committee:
“The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted”—
noble Lords should understand that this was the context when the evidence was given—
“No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care”.
This is one group we have not really heard a lot from, and we should be minded of its role in the system as well.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am going to repeat the words that were used by my honourable friend the Minister for Courts in the other place. The decision as to the introduction of the panel was made by the sponsor.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Can I outline that it is a matter for a Minister? There is correspondence between the Minister in the other place and Rebecca Paul MP that specifically relates to the issue of “undue influence”, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has now proposed to be added for the first time into the Bill. I would be really grateful if the Minister would look at that correspondence and write and put a letter in the Library, because the Government expressed—if I am remembering correctly—a view on why “undue influence” was not appropriate to add to the Bill.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It sounds like an important point. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that I do not have the answer to that at my fingertips right now, but I will write to her.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I do not accept that. The position is in relation to the panel. If it wants a report from a doctor, it can get it. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to be saying that the court can ask for all these things—which of course it can—and if it thinks they are appropriate, it will do so. I assume it will not ask for them when it does not think they are necessary to the resolution of the issues. The panel can do the same and, if it does not get them, just like the court, it will have to say no.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
In relation to the panel, as a non-medic I understand from my time on the Select Committee that “multidisciplinary” has a particular meaning within healthcare that the witness to the Commons was relating to, so it is not quite the same issue. Is the noble and learned Lord not concerned that only two of the three representative bodies of the panel came and gave evidence to the Select Committee, and the British Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are not supporting the Bill, regardless of what their view might be on the principle? Although the noble and learned Lord is obviously very well persuaded by the evidence, the professional bodies that would sit on this panel are not yet persuaded.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord raised those points a couple of weeks ago and, since then, we have had the letters in the Sunday Times about the appearance of the chief executive in front of the Justice Select Committee. I shall not comment on that, because the CCRC is an independent body, but it has already begun to implement a number of the Henley recommendations—and, of course, we intend to go further on that. On the appointment of the interim chair, as the noble and learned Lord will know the objective is to have an interim chair for 18 months to review the CCRC’s operations. An individual has been identified and is going through the approvals process, so the announcement will be made imminently.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, at the reverse end of the spectrum, we have a case that has gone before the Criminal Cases Review Commission for preliminary consideration—the Lucy Letby case—with all the uncertainty that must be creating for the families, particularly as they are also having to navigate a public inquiry. Can the Minister satisfy this House that there is adequate resource within the commission to deal with that case expeditiously?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
There has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC over the past five years or so, partly to meet the point on forensics that I made in answer to an earlier question. If there is a disproportionate extra amount of work because of the particular case to which the noble Baroness refers then I will make sure that the authorities within the MoJ are aware of that but, as I say, there has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC for a number of years now.
Prenuptial Agreements
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing today’s debate and for her tenacity on this issue and the wider issues of family law reform.
With the Law Commission’s recent report, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, and its ongoing work on the issue of financial remedies on divorce or dissolution, which includes reviewing its own 2014 report on the matter, it seems we might be on the cusp of much legislative work in this area. So I too would be grateful to know whether His Majesty’s Government’s position, which I agree with, remains that all these issues about financial remedies should be dealt with together. If there is limited legislative time, which is often what the Government say, I reiterate the point I have made at Oral Questions that the greatest injustice to be dealt with in this area is currently those people entering a religious wedding ceremony that, when conducted, turns out not to be valid under UK law.
For participants, especially women, even the current remedies of Section 25 of the MCA are but a dream. Many are left destitute, particularly if they then have adult children, where there is no Schedule 1 claim. I accept that that law is not as well baked, or oven ready, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. However, I do think that for those women it should have priority.
On the subject of today’s debate, I wonder whether the comment by a previous Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, that prenuptials are the province of a “small and privileged cohort” is correct. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has outlined, and if the Co-op Legal Services statistics are in any way accurate, about a fifth of married couples may have such an arrangement at the moment.
If you google “prenuptial agreement” in the UK, the AI answer is that, as per the case of Radmacher v Granatino, your prenup will be relevant as long as you entered into it freely with full disclosure, you have legal advice, and it is not unfair. I accept the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, about the breadth of the discretion for “unfair”. That will be comforting to read if, say, your prenup entitles you only to a return plane ticket to the Philippines—only you and not any of your children. Yes, this has been a case. All the reform suggestions outlined would present a remedy for this. I presume it would be prima facie evidence of duress under the proposal outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. But many people will just look now to AI, so a law change will change that answer when someone looks up a prenuptial agreement.
Can I be assured by His Majesty’s Government that any reforms will have a comprehensive publicity campaign so that the public, particularly vulnerable groups, understand any change? One has only to look at how many people think common-law marriage exists as a legal concept to see how necessary awareness is. I also ask His Majesty’s Government to look at what is covered in the citizenship curriculum. Surely young people need to know and understand an institution, and its legal ramifications, that so many will eventually enter.
Despite much Law Commission work, there remain areas of the prenuptial jurisdiction that have not yet been discovered or considered. It is one of the privileges of being in your Lordships’ House that you are approached to raise issues that the Government may need to consider. Unfortunately for this nation of pet lovers and owners, the law still treats pets as mere chattels. They are treated as property for the purposes of Section 25.
There are currently about 13 million dogs and about 10 million cats as pets, so it is actually not a minority issue. The United Kingdom is becoming something of an outlier legally in relation to this. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, from his role at the International Academy of Family Lawyers, will be aware of this as well. The recent decision of District Judge Crisp in FI v DO on 20 December last year in the Manchester family court outlined what might become a test for other cases to decide, as in that case, who gets custody of the dog.
But the most interesting part of that judgment was this:
“The dog is a chattel. At times it seemed to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application which featured the dog when the wife was cross examined about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements. I set this out because I have no doubt that if this feature could have been agreed other matters may have been able to be agreed”.
Such, of course, was the emotional attachment that this couple had to the dog that they were in court. A change in the law could avoid some litigation, I would hope.
On 28 January this year, District Judge Hatvany put a blog piece titled Of Dogs and Divorce on the Financial Remedies Journal website, which said:
“Our legal system has a reputation for being the finest on the planet. Yet in court, the legal test for who gets to keep the family dog is the same as that for any other inanimate content of the family home. The roots of this absurdity lie in the common law, which insists that pets are properly no different in principle from furniture even though we all know that this does not reflect reality. This probably stems back to mediaeval times when dogs were kept for hunting and cats for mousing, but in the 21st century it’s laughably outdated. In other jurisdictions, courts are beginning to recognise that pets aren’t just property. There seems to be no effective mechanism in English courts, however, for resolving the issue of who gets the family dog”.
I am informed that this niche professional journal got a large response to this blog piece on pets. When I was weighing up whether to sign up to speak on this Motion in such eminent company, I was reassured that “You and Yours” on Radio 4 this Monday had the subject matter of “pet-nups”. Do His Majesty’s Government have a view on pets in prenuptial agreements and on whether they should continue to be considered chattels? Is the committee that your Lordships established under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 looking at this matter?
This is happening in other jurisdictions. Colombia amended its law in 2016 and its case law recognises that emotional bonds to animals within families do not equate to making animals equivalent to humans. Proposals are apparently afoot to amend the Italian legal code to
“regulate the custody of family pets upon separation or divorce”,
and New York has a best interests test on deciding the custody of a companion animal. In many of these changes, the jurisprudence stems from a recognition of the sentience of animals, so it looks like the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 might inadvertently have started us on this journey. These changes also recognise humans’ emotional connection to animals and move away from the division that anything non-human is merely an object. I hope His Majesty’s Government will look at these comparators to see whether they have affected prenuptial arrangements in those jurisdictions.
I thank the working group on pets and divorce, barrister Sarah Lucy Cooper and solicitor Estella Newbold-Brown for their work on this and for drawing this to my attention. This group also has the support of the previously mentioned High Court judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, and the Kennel Club. Will His Majesty’s Government agree to meet them to understand the solutions in this area of the law and how often it is an issue in proceedings?
In principle, I share the sentiments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her vigorous dissenting judgment in Radmacher. I also note the comments of the right reverend Prelate that this is a covenant, not a contract. It reminds me so much of the wisdom we used to receive from the late Lord Sacks in explaining to us the difference between covenants and contracts. I am pleased to learn that there would be an irreducible minimum here: a spouse would not be left so destitute as to be dependent on public funds and an agreement should not be allowed to leave the burden on the taxpayer rather than on the other spouse who has means.
As I conclude, I realise that I may have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous—from women who are left destitute and without remedy as they are not legally married to the custody of family pets—but this reflects the variation and breadth of issues that the breakdown of a marriage or civil partnership can reveal and the issues that the Government need to consider when legislating for a prenuptial, or pet-nuptial, agreement.
Humanist Weddings
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and the letter he wrote to me recently, which I answered. Complexities were identified in the Law Commission report a number of years ago which are real and need to be taken seriously. The Government are set on doing that, and on giving themselves the time so to do.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have previously raised with the Minister another issue with our marriage law with which he is familiar. There are cases where people—mainly women—go through a religious ceremony thinking that they have got married but they have not actually done so under UK law. They find that out only when things break down. Can the Minister outline the solution to that? Are the Government considering making it an offence to conduct such a ceremony without first having seen a civil certificate of marriage?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not know the answer, but I will write to her, because she raises a very important point. When she asked a similar question a few weeks ago, I made the point that I regularly came across those types of scenarios when I sat as a family court magistrate. I add that the myth of common-law marriage exists not just in particular sectors of our society but across it. It includes the idea that women—it is usually women—get rights, but that is absolutely not the case. That is why the Government are undertaking to look at how the rights of people who have been in long-standing, cohabiting relationships can be addressed when those couples split up.
Humanist Marriages
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am afraid that my noble friend has been unsuccessful in getting a different answer, but I take the point he makes.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said “in due course”, but it has been more than two years since the Law Commission report. There are people still getting married in either domestic premises or religious premises that are not registered. They find out—it is usually the women—that they are not lawfully married only when it comes to their wanting a divorce that they then, of course, cannot get. Can the Minister put this somewhere into citizenship, so that people are aware that, if it is going to be only in due course, this injustice will be dealt with?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. In my time as a family magistrate, I often had people in front of me who were married in religious ceremonies but not married in the eyes of the law, and we had to unpick the arrangements for those separating couples. The noble Baroness has made a very good point.
Criminal Jurors
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to recognise the work of criminal jurors and, in particular, whether they plan to introduce an ‘appreciation day’ for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the crucial importance of the role of jurors in delivering justice and the need to secure their well-being. The Government have no current plans to introduce a juror appreciation day, but we continue to commend the hard work of jury panels throughout the year and to explore ways of supporting those who are undertaking this very important civic duty.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am obviously disappointed by my noble and learned friend’s Answer. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, have introduced such a week—not just a day. There is an increase in jurors speaking out after serving on some of our most notorious trials about the effect that jury service had on them, such as making them unwell. Can my noble and learned friend agree to have a call for evidence to understand what the extent of this issue is? Then there could be analysis of whether it is the type or length of case, or the way in which evidence is presented nowadays, with much more footage, rather than photographs, that is causing these issues that we can then assess.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I would like first, if I may, to thank my noble friend for raising this issue and for organising a recent stakeholder conference. The Government are aware of the question that she rightly raises, but are not, at present, planning for a call for evidence as such. We already have regular jury satisfaction surveys, which generally express high levels of jury satisfaction and a willingness to serve again. We do know that a minority of jurors suffer stress, and we are exploring options that we intend to test in the Crown Courts later this year and to issue further guidance to courts on the circumstances in which ad hoc support can be arranged.
Miscarriages of Justice
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister, whose department is seized of the work on the welfare of jurors, who are exposed to traumatic evidence in that peculiar environment where they are cut off from their daily routines and support structures because we do not want them harmed. However, in the context of this Question, could he raise this issue up the list of priorities? We do not want a juror to be so traumatised—I think that contempt of court rules allow them to reveal this —that they begin to question their capacity to deliberate, and then have a question mark over the verdict for that reason.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My noble friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is essential to our system that jurors be properly looked after, and the Government will continue to consider the points raised in her question.
Jurors: Mental Health Impact
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the emotional, psychological and mental health impact on jurors of sitting in serious criminal trials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, research into the impact of jury service has found that most people enjoy their service and find the experience interesting and informative. We know that some people can find it distressing. Anyone feeling this way is encouraged to contact their GP, who can put them in touch with the necessary support services. We are currently looking at options, including providing guidance to courts, to explore what more can be done.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer but there are now increasing reports in the media of those having adverse reactions to the evidence that they are hearing, and the type of evidence they are having to hear is more graphic and often video footage. Will my noble and learned friend outline whether there are plans to have a proper systemic review of a court centre and talk to jurors before, and particularly after, their experience to see whether people are being adversely impacted by doing jury service?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the latest research was done by Professor Cheryl Thomas in 2020: 81% of those who had served on a jury said that they would be “happy to serve again”; 78% found it “interesting”. At the same time, it is quite true that 42% found the experience “stressful”. It is an issue, and the department is exploring options. What shape those options will take—whether there should be some sort of counselling service, whether it should be authorised by a judge and who would provide it—are all questions currently under consideration.
Divorce: Financial Provision
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I hope to make a further announcement immediately before or shortly after the Easter Recess. Matters are being finalised at the moment. Typically, Law Commission work takes place in two phases. There is an initial phase of the kind I have just outlined, where the problem is identified and comparative studies are made. That is typically followed by a consultation phase in which all stakeholders’ views are fully taken into account, which results in final recommendations and possibly draft legislation. That process will probably take at least two years.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, not only is this law antiquated—it is 50 years old—but there is an out-of-date view, which I found even among those in their twenties and thirties, that if you are cohabiting you are in some sort of arrangement called common-law marriage, which does not exist, and that the court would have powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act. So without going to the Law Commission, can my noble and learned friend the Minister please raise awareness that actually, that is not the legal position and there is an even more complex situation if you are not in a legal relationship such as a marriage or civil partnership?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, cohabitation is not envisaged as being within the review we have been talking about today. It does raise important issues and the Government keep them under review.
Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on how fund providers operate their relevant systems. The number of adults holding child trust funds who have become adults and lack capacity is quite small—it is thought to be around 1% to 2% percent—but it is none the less significant and the risk of abuse is quite prominent.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have recently been alongside someone who had tried to become an appointee. Can my noble friend the Minister please talk to the DWP about its system to become an appointee for somebody, because it is not simple? Is there not then a case for basically not duplicating the processes? Once you get through the appointee hoops, which are considerable, should you not automatically get a deputyship—so you just have to do it once?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are extremely reluctant at the moment to confuse two things. One is the processes by which the DWP works, and the other is the legal process by which an adult lacking capacity can have somebody else act on their behalf. That is a job for the Court of Protection. It is not just a question of child trust funds, although that is an important issue. This can go on throughout a child’s life, and it is quite likely that a child lacking capacity who reaches the age of 18 will continue to lack capacity for many years to come, and there will be important decisions to take. That really should be supervised by the Court of Protection and not by the DWP.