Speeches by Shah.

“I completely agree. That is the case in the Bill, which raises concerns. Finally, Parliament needs to get back into the habit of holding powerful commissioners accountable. There is no mechanism in the Bill for removing a commissioner even if they somehow failed significantly in their duties. We might say to ourselves,…”

“Given my hon. Friend’s expertise, does he anticipate JR being allowed in the panel setting? If so, would it be before the death or after? Can the decision by the panel be judicially reviewed?”

“Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier. I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause …”

“This relates to my point, Mrs Harris, I promise you. DNA evidence subsequently proved that Andrew Malkinson was indeed innocent, yet he was allowed to remain in jail. Members of this House expressed serious disquiet about the conduct of the chairwoman of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, over the Malkinson case. In July last ye…”

“I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I will look at it, but that was not my understanding. There are multiple reasons to oppose new clause 21. With it, the Bill will reduce the impartiality that would have been provided by having a High Court judge rule on applications. It will increase the risk that a lar…”

“I will make some progress. As it is, we have removed the judicial oversight. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the panels having expertise, but that is not judicial oversight.”

“I thank the hon. Member for reminding me of that; I talked about that earlier. I agree with him that this is about the legalities. Ultimately, it comes back to judicial oversight, which is what was promised originally. That is why judges were part of the original proposals for the Bill. The words we must listen to are …”

“I agree: there is not a judicial process, so to speak. There most definitely is not. As I make progress, I will outline my concerns about that very clearly. Let us take the second point raised by Sir James. He asked who will go about “testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”? New clause 21 finally gives the p…”

“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Actually, clause 9(2)(c) covers the complications but does not state clearly what would happen in the event of those complications. Would the patient still want to carry on down that path?”

“My hon. Friend’s intervention takes us back to the concerns I already have. I understand that mental health tribunals relate to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which would inform people on that panel in making their judgments. I have spoken extensively against the use of the Mental Capacity Act in this particular field.”

“I either misheard my hon. Friend or did not understand his earlier point, so let me speak to the point he makes now. My understanding is that sectioning someone under the Mental Health Act is a very extreme measure. Someone is sectioned in circumstances in which lots and lots of evidence has been taken from people who …”

“I absolutely agree that we have not thought this through enough, because that process has not been laid out. We really need to think about these potential eventualities. When such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers, and so will the media. They will…”

“The truth is—I said this in my previous speech, which I will not repeat, as instructed by you, Mrs Harris—that neither of the safeguards is strong enough. As it was, the Bill was not strong enough—that has been recognised and changes have been proposed—but neither is the idea of a commissioner. There is another great p…”

“That was not my understanding; I will come back to that point, because I am sure I have references to where that has been talked about. There is also the question of whether panels should be heard in public. Under new clause 16, the legal member of a panel would decide whether it should sit in public. Finally, I return…”

“I think that by making some progress I will answer that question. Turning to Sir James Munby’s question about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors and any other parties, experts or lay witnesses, each time a panel meets we will be asking three senior professionals t…”

“As I have stated before—I will make reference to that very point later—I would argue the safeguards are just not robust enough. There should be a mechanism for trained and experienced people to find witnesses who might have relevant information. This could relate to another criticism that Members have made of the panel…”

“I will go into this in even greater detail in later speeches, but I will say now that although the process was not fit for purpose, Sir James Munby also says that this one is not fit for purpose. Neither process gives us the legal aspect—if anything, the Bill has been watered down. As I make progress, I will outline ho…”

“I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and then I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.”

“As I make progress I will address some my hon. Friend’s points—I have a fairly long speech—but I will say now that when the Bill passed on Second Reading, one of the safeguards was that it included judicial oversight. That is very different to what we are talking about now.”

“That is the very point I am struggling with. Generally speaking, the GMC guidelines are absolutely right, and doctors are saving lives and making the person better. In this instance, somebody might have complications and they might vomit, for example—that happens a lot because people are unconscious. What does the clin…”