Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about his Amendment 6, because my concerns also relate to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It does not seem to reflect the way that seriously ill children behave.

I have looked after children dying of malignancies. They knew that they were dying and asked really straightforward questions. They would ask about how they would die and would want to have in-depth conversations. I recall one little boy who asked me if he could play football in heaven, after another little boy in an adjacent room had died a few weeks earlier. These children asked for explicit details and wanted to have lots of conversations. Another one said that he would die after his goldfish died. Sadly, that was prophetic and when he was close to death, he asked his divorced parents to come in and promise to look after his siblings together. These children know each other; they want to ask questions and need to have them answered.

I am not sure how, with Amendment 6, doctors are meant to respond to these children when they ask questions. At the moment, you respond gently and openly, and explore with them what they are really asking about in an age-appropriate way. I have a concern that this could make people feel risk-averse about having open communication with these children, and let children remain isolated with their fears. They hear about assisted dying on the news and in the media; the ethical aspects are part of the senior school curriculum in some areas. I am really concerned that Amendment 6, while well-intentioned, and the adjacent amendments, might actually make the day-to-day looking after of these children as they are dying more difficult.

Amendments 170 and 405 seem to lower the threshold for communication. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for pointing out that whenever an interpreter is used they must be a registered public service interpreter, to avoid the poor communication scenario which I referred to last week. Speech and language therapists are essential, so can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explain how with one would judge “effective”, as is listed in his amendment, and assess “reasonable steps”? These seem very subjective and I am not sure how they would be monitored. Others have spoken to the other amendments, so I look forward to hearing the comments from the noble and learned Lord.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I will speak briefly to raise attention to Amendment 170, which has recently been added to the group. In an effort to short-circuit, we will come to the issues of interpreters much later on.

I have laid Amendment 174, which quite simply says that an interpreter must be over the age of 18. It will not surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that I have a whole cluster of amendments to deal with what may be inadvertent situations that are not covered off for under-18s. I invite the noble and learned Lord to look at that amendment to see whether it can swiftly be clarified and dealt with, along with the others that relate to children.

In this group, I will also speak to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendments 332, 417 to 419 and 425, which I believe are a genuine attempt to deal with the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It advised the sponsor of the Bill to remove the Clause 15 power and to align the other clauses, because there were inconsistent wordings. I want to reiterate that reassurance was given in the other place that there would be one second opinion by another doctor. This goes back to the noble and learned Lord’s opener: when we talk about “cannot”, we need to cover that off in the Bill. The Bill was covering death or illness—obvious situations where the function cannot be fulfilled—but “will not” is obviously a different scenario.

Unless the doctor is unable to perform that function, for whatever reason, if we do not stick to the word “cannot”, we will potentially get the opening up of the ability to choose a number of doctors and maybe having some kind of discussion. Then they may not want to act, which may be for the reasons outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Goudie. Then we might have a number of assessments or discussions that do not become a formal refusal which is then documented. I do not think the noble and learned Lord intended, by changing Clauses 10 and 13, to broaden the scenarios where a further referral could be made to any situation in which the doctor is unable or unwilling to continue; I think this has happened inadvertently. I know that my noble friend Lord Harper has laid amendments regarding particular scenarios beyond “death” and “illness”, and I think that the Minister in the other place, Mr Kinnock, mentioned family circumstances or emergencies. Perhaps the way ahead here—I am trying to pre-empt a further group, when we get to it—is that we could have a clause that outlines more circumstances than the two that are in the Bill.

Obviously, as lawyers, we know we can never cover every circumstance that would justify a doctor saying, “I can’t do this function any more”, not “I won’t”. Perhaps there could be a system whereby a doctor who wants to withdraw, and his or her circumstances are not in the paragraphs, should have to go to the panel and say, “I’ve got a situation that isn’t within the framework of the legislation, but I can’t for these reasons perform that function”. So I hope the noble and learned Lord will not move those amendments, as he has promised, but we could come back to this in the group that deals substantively with exploring scenarios where the doctor cannot act.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

In this moment while we pause, I congratulate the noble Lord, the Government Whip, for being so vigilant: some of us in the Chamber cannot see the whole Gallery. It is appreciated.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I, too, thank my noble friend the Government Whip. I apologise too if I have spoken out of discourtesy in the Committee: I was not sure whose name was on which amendment, so I will continue.

Physically, I am, of course, working in my home. If that behaviour had happened in the office, it would be an offence, an assault: “intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person”. It will not be an offence in the metaverse and it is probably not harassment because it is not a course of conduct.

Although the basic definition of user-to-user content covers the metaverse, as does encountering, as has been mentioned in relation to content under Clause 207, which is broad enough to cover the haptic suits, the restriction to illegal content could be problematic, as the metaverse is a complex of live interactions that mimics real life and such behaviours, including criminal ones. Also, the avatar of an adult could sexually assault the avatar of a child in the metaverse, and with haptic technologies this would not be just a virtual experience. Potentially even more fundamentally than Amendment 125, the Bill is premised on the internet being a solely virtual environment when it comes to content that can harm. But what I am seeking to outline is that conduct can also harm.

I recognise that we cannot catch everything in this Bill at this moment. This research is literally hot off the press; it is only a few weeks old. At the very least, it highlights the need for future-proofing. I am aware that some of the issues I have highlighted about the fundamental difference between conduct and content refer to clauses noble Lords may already have debated. However, I believe that these points are significant. It is just happenstance that the research came out and is hot off the press. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet the Dawes Centre urgently to consider whether there are further changes the Government need to make to the Bill to ensure that it covers the harms I have outlined.

Education Settings: Wider Opening

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Berridge

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, as I outlined, we are keen to ensure that the narrowing of the attainment gap is not lost during this period. The £2.4 billion a year pupil premium, which is paid for disadvantaged students, will continue to be paid to schools for their funding, even though most pupils are obviously not in school at the moment. We are looking at interventions for vulnerable children in particular, to ensure that they have not fallen behind.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. At the outset of lockdown, we know that alcohol sales increased by 67%. It is now said that 29% of people report drinking more during lockdown, and one in seven families report an increase in tension in households where there is a child under the age of 18. The highest number of children on record are calling the NSPCC helpline—with a 32% increase from previously—and reporting domestic abuse. How can these children, who previously accessed a place of safety at school, be case-found now? What safety is being provided for them since they are a hidden, silent and vulnerable population?

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, it is incredibly sad to think about the lack of the protective good for children in schools during this time. I am pleased that the £1.6 million for the NSPCC helpline has been useful to it. We are also pleased that among vulnerable children in contact with a social worker, we have now seen a considerable increase in the numbers in school. There are 47,000 of them in school, up from 37,000 on 21 May, which is to be welcomed. As I say, the teams reacting on the ground are working closely with local authorities’ children’s services, so that information about children who are not in school is passed on. We have redeployed Ofsted staff to bolster local authorities where they have needed it. While it is not possible to replace the protective good that school is for those children, we are seeing a steady increase in the numbers going to school.

Higher Education

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Berridge

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, in addition to the forecast numbers and the 5% uplift, 10,000 places are reserved, and I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that half of them will be in the healthcare sector. Further details on the allocation of the 10,000 additional places will be released in due course.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

The measures are a welcome step for cash flow but do not avoid the projected fall in income of £2.5 billion and the cost to the economy of £6 billion and 60,000 jobs. What is the Government’s response to this assessment from the UCU/London Economics report?

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the package that has been announced will stabilise the sector and give all the clarity that can be given at the moment. As I have outlined, the forecast is that the sector will be eligible for £700 million as regards loans and the job retention scheme. However, we are working with and keeping in close touch with the sector. The Office for Students has an individual contacting every provider so that we are in touch with their financial situation going forward.