Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 359, 660, 665 and 681, as I believe they would ensure the widest possible protection for those people who, due to issues of conscience, are not able to participate in assisted dying. I specifically use “not able”, which is a different concept from that of autonomy and choice that underlies the Bill. “Not able” in matters of conscience is something we have not really considered in our law for a long time, but, if one casts one’s mind to conscientious objection to being involved in war, it is an important part of people’s rights to be able to say, “I am not able to participate in that”. There was some comment about the role of the porter. Everyone has that right of conscience—not choice, but conscience. One only has to watch “24 Hours in A&E” to see that that brief encounter with the porter, as an example, is such an important part of healthcare. We need to remember that everyone has freedom of conscience, not choice.
Of course, if the Bill explicitly provided the opt-in system, as my noble friend Lady Fraser mentioned, then the protections in these amendments would not be needed. I am afraid that I address the noble and learned Lord again about pre-legislative scrutiny. I admire the confidence with which he assures us, Bill in hand, that this is all sorted out; but until I am satisfied that the royal colleges, representing the people who are going to deliver this, are satisfied that the Bill is that clear, I am afraid these amendments need to be considered.
There are other jurisdictions where there are tighter protections for practitioners. In Oregon, even, the medical practitioner does not have to participate, document requests or provide information, but the language in the Bill is just “unwilling or unable”, which is a wider definition.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has mentioned the case from Scotland, where they considered the conscientious objection clause in the abortion Bill, which was found to apply only to direct participation, not to the ancillary services these various amendments are trying to secure for individuals and organisations. I anticipate that there will be GP surgeries that will opt out because patients will want to know that whoever they get at the surgery does not support this.
The amendments would cover the situations I have been concerned about: the Secretary of State, the commissioners of services for assisted dying—if this is going to be an NHS service—and civil servants. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm to us, either today or on our final day of Committee as currently scheduled, that the civil servants in all government departments who have had to work on the Bill have not been pressurised or required to work on it. The Bill may not yet be law, but it is good employment practice not to put any pressure on staff—noble Lords have given other examples—to make sure that they participate.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, coroners still record verdicts of suicide. The Government still have a suicide prevention strategy. The Bill before us is amending the criminal law, called the Suicide Act 1961. I agree that we should act with compassion, but we have to be legally correct about what we are doing. There is potentially a wider issue there for the Government to take away if they want to change the name of legislation and the name of the strategy, but that is not for today.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen and learn and to try to clarify my mind regarding the various amendments. I wish that some of our critics in the press had been here this morning, because the amendments today go to the very heart of the Bill and we have had the opportunity of hearing from people on different sides of real expertise, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gerada, Lady Hollins, Lady O’Loan and Lady Finlay. It has been a huge privilege for those of us who are not medical experts to be able to clarify our minds on this issue.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. She made points I had not heard before, and I do not know whether he had. She claimed that the Bill as drafted is not actually workable, and I very much hope he will be able to address that point.
I shall say three things. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, suggested that the things we are talking about today should be left to the medical professions to regulate. However, what we have been debating today—whether we should have a public register or whether we should simply have an opt-out clause, which everyone agrees with, of course—is not just simply a detailed regulation, with due respect; it goes to the heart of the Bill and Parliament has to make its mind up about it.
Secondly, towards the end of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, who we listened to with great respect, mentioned the well-known fact that a number of doctors, when patients come to the end of their life, give very large doses of painkiller, which has the effect of shortening the patient’s life. From an ethical point of view, there is a fundamental difference, depending on whether one is a utilitarian or a consequentialist on the one hand, or whether one believes that certain things are fundamentally wrong. This has been mentioned two or three times in the debates over recent years. For the ethical tradition that is this country’s base, particularly for the medical profession, there is a fundamental difference between administering a poison to kill someone and administering a large dose of painkilling drugs that has the foreseen effect of also shortening their lives, which from a moral point of view is entirely legitimate.
Lastly, on the question of language—this has been mentioned before—I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, that many of us do not like to confuse what we are debating with assisted dying. However, we also respect what the noble Baroness says—that the language of suicide is unpleasant and really not appropriate. Personally, I like to use language that is as neutral as possible and talk about people taking their own life, which seems to me as neutral a language as we can get on this.
Modern Foreign Languages: Teachers
Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Harries of Pentregarth(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I outlined in the figures, we are seeing increasing numbers of those applying to teach in our schools. That is important for the supply chain and to make sure that there is good-quality teaching, as it is a requirement of the EBacc to take a modern foreign language. In addition to initial teacher training, there is now the early career framework —professional development support—for two years, so that this is seen as comparable to professions such as law and accountancy in those terms.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The Erasmus programme has been a major driver in sustaining the recruitment of MFL trainee teachers. Will the Turing scheme match Erasmus by facilitating incoming students from the EU, as well as funding outward mobility?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Turing scheme is backed by £110 million and we hope to reach 35,000 students. The funding is for those at UK institutions to travel abroad and we expect other countries to fund their students to do the same.
Free School Meals
Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Harries of Pentregarth(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, indeed. Many schools in 17 local authorities are open during the holidays, and the Government have provided £9 million to fund holiday clubs that include food as well. At the moment, however, given how hard all staff in our schools have worked, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we want the school kitchens open in that traditional manner during the school holidays.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I recognise that the Government have given significant sums to strengthen the welfare of children but would the Minister not agree that the most focused and efficient way of supporting the most vulnerable members of our society—the children—is by paying for school meals during the holidays, as has been recognised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments? That would be the most focused and efficient way of doing it.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the method used by the Scottish and Welsh Governments is, in fact, a similar methodology to the local authority welfare assistance fund, as it is through local councils and does not expect schools to deliver it. This is a time, during the pandemic, when all of us—government, communities, faith communities, families and charities—need to come together to support everyone.
Covid-19 Summer Food Fund
Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Harries of Pentregarth(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, it is correct that the Government have temporarily extended free school meal eligibility to some groups of children where there is no recourse to public funds, particularly the children of Zambrano carers, where the parent may not be a British citizen but the child is. As I understand it, we have issued guidance on what documentation may be used to establish membership of these groups. I will get back to the noble Baroness with any further detail on that, but there has been a welcome easing of those restrictions, bearing in mind the current crisis.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I very much welcome the Government’s U-turn on this issue but, as the Minister will recognise, producing seven meals a week on £15 is extremely difficult. I am pretty certain that I could not do it. Is there anything that the Government might do to encourage a competition among families in receipt of vouchers to produce menus that are nourishing, attractive and not too difficult? Perhaps she might also encourage the media to set up a Marcus Rashford prize for the best set of seven menus.
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, as I have outlined, because families cannot buy at the scale that schools can to provide free school meals, the vouchers are at £15 to provide lunches rather than the £11.50 normally allocated to schools. There is an NHS “Eat Well” guide, which we encourage parents to look at; there are also, of course, the school food standards and the Change4Life healthy eating recipes. There are resources out there for parents to look at for a healthy diet. In addition, in 2016 we began the child obesity strategy to ensure that children are eating a healthier diet.