Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who kindly wrote to me and sent emails, including members of the public, religious organisations, religious leaders and many people in the medical profession. There is no greater responsibility than how we treat those at the end of their life—the vulnerable, the ill, the elderly and the dying—and that is precisely why this Bill troubles me so deeply.

I will start by addressing something fundamental: language. Euphemisms are dangerous; they are designed to conceal what is actually happening. Why is this called by its supporters an assisted dying Bill? It is nothing of the sort. Assistance sounds good, and dying is a natural process which comes to us all. Pain relief and emotional support are vital and uncontroversial. However, this Bill is not about that; it is about assisted suicide, and that is altogether a different matter.

I understand why some see this as a matter of choice, but they cannot ignore the context in which that choice is made. When someone is terminally ill, frightened, exhausted and overwhelmed, they are at their most vulnerable. It is precisely at that moment that this Bill proposes to offer them a legal means to end their life, aided by others, approved by our institutions and normalised by law. An individual who takes their own life alone does so out of desperation, but a combined operation involving doctors, lawyers, family and the state is something entirely different. Those who support the process may act with the best of intentions, but motivations are not always pure.

It is rarely simple and, even when it is, the risk of coercion remains real. I do not believe that we can eliminate that risk and this Bill certainly does not do enough to do so. Once we create a legal route to assisted suicide, how can we ever be sure that a patient’s choice is not shaped, even subtly, by pressure, manipulation, guilt or simply the sense of being a burden?

This raises another concern: the undermining of palliative care. Palliative care is so important. Instead of extending choice, I fear that we are quietly narrowing it. Not everyone has access to high-quality end-of-life care, and not everyone is given a full range of pain management, hospice support and spiritual care, or even the time to prepare for a dignified death.

Rather than committing to universal excellent palliative services, this Bill offers another option: to end life earlier. This is not a service to people at the end of their lives; it is an abdication of responsibility to provide excellent services to those in need. Some will say that this is about autonomy, but it is not true autonomy; true autonomy cannot exist without full support to live. We have seen in other countries that what begins as a narrow exception can widen. In Canada, eligibility has already expanded beyond terminal illness to include chronic illnesses or disabilities.

Finally, we must listen to the voices of those most at risk. Many disabled people’s organisations oppose the Bill, not because they fear death but because they fear that society too often assumes that their lives are not worth living. If we are to be a compassionate society, we must reject this path. We must invest instead in palliative care, emotional support, hospice services and the time and presence to walk with people to the very end. In particular, people should be able to be looked after at home. We owe our dying not the offer of an early death but the assurance that they are valued, supported and loved until the very last moment. This Bill cannot promise that. So, with deep respect for all who have spoken on both sides, I cannot support it.

UK/US Free Trade Agreement

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. I disagree with the Mayor of London. President Trump won the election; he has an enormous mandate, and we have to work with him. Sometimes, a period of silence would be most welcome.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister join me in congratulating our ambassador, Karen Pierce, on her persistence and leadership in trying to get a free trade agreement over a period of some years? She worked with the team in the American embassy, with consuls around America and everywhere that she could influence Americans to gain us support. We hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, with his skills from his time as a trade commissioner in Europe and his other contacts, will be able to continue giving such leadership to the team in Washington and here.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The appointment of my noble friend Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US shows how seriously we take our relationship with the US and the incoming President’s team. My noble friend Lord Mandelson has extensive foreign and economic policy expertise, particularly in the crucial issue of trade, with strong business links and experience at the highest level of government.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill, as well as the discussions in the other place and what Minister Jarvis said. I am so pleased that it has come to this House speedily. I thank all of those who sent me briefings, who have been in touch with me and with whom I have had meetings, including Figen Murray and her colleagues.

Doing nothing is not an option. The public can be, and have been, targeted at a wide range of public venues. The terror threat is not predictable. Attacks are hard to deflect. Everyone needs to be part of the measures to keep people safe. “Reasonably practicable” is in the text: that is a familiar foundation of health and safety. However, as so often, there are concerns about an additional responsibility being imposed on local authorities without necessary resources—or proportionality, which is the key in the case of bodies with considerable resources and more liberty to resource. The measures in the Bill are proportionate: they are the result of two very extensive consultations, pre-legislative scrutiny and the legislative process so far. They are not unduly onerous and they have proceeded smoothly so far.

However, for local authorities, we have to find a way of giving them further support. We must ask whether there should be an extra way in the planning department, without having a planning Bill, through which we could amend planning legislation—perhaps through statutory instruments—to make this support go hand in hand with this Bill, without having to delay everything. We also have to look at resources for local authorities, because we know how strapped they are. This is a necessary and essential part of our day-to-day life. This should lead to speedy conclusions, legislatively and in terms of resources.

It is already almost eight years since the Manchester Arena attack and the attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market. As the Chief Coroner recommended after those attacks, protective security must be enhanced and duties must be clarified, with appropriate guidance on the implementation of duties and an assessment. As public authorities need to work together, there has to be joined-up partnership between private security firms, the police, local authorities and government. This cannot be done in silos; it has to be joined together. The more I have listened to colleagues today, the more I know that it is correct to recommend that we try to have this working together.

We must consider the reality of places and spaces, with consideration of terrorist attacks becoming part of planning procedures. We also have to ensure that there is more training for staff on how to use CCTV cameras. Staff have to check that they are actually working and that there are not just blank tapes inside. There has to be proper training and we have to work out how it will be paid for. It also has to be linked to the police and so on.

I know that there is a working relationship between private security and the police, but it now has to be stronger. As many Members have said today, we also have to consider the cost of consultants. We need to have a list of the consultants and to identify who are just working on the back of a brown envelope. That is very important because many lives are at risk.

Physical protection measures are only one part of the necessary security measures; they are component parts and embody an important principle. The owner of a public space has the responsibility for the safety of the public. This is an important piece of the counter- terrorism measures; it is paramount that it is included.

I have previously thought about something that my noble friend Lord Harris said about the protection of schools. Perhaps we could look at schools with local authorities, which could work joined up with the Department for Education and some other bodies. We have to look at both primary and secondary schools. We have been relatively lucky so far that we have not had in the UK what we have seen in other parts of the world, but we have to be conscious that this could happen in any state school, religious school or wherever else. We know that this could happen—I am sorry to say that. My noble friend’s recommendations are very important.

Also, in all places of worship, this is becoming more important than we have previously thought. We go to church, to synagogue or wherever else, and we do not really think about this. We just go in, see our friends, wander around and leave—but we know now, the more that we think about it, that we could be at risk. There needs to be some training, but that has to be linked to the police and the local authority; it should not be left to churches and other religious spaces to work out for themselves how this should be done using private security and other advice. That is very important. Resources must all be joined up together. This Bill could use statutory instruments—but not in the long term—to make this happen. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Angiolini Inquiry Report

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

Is it not right that when police officers commit such offences their pensions should also be suspended immediately as part of the punishment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot say that it is right across the board; I do not know. It would obviously have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The way that we have changed the dismissals process will, I hope, give that decision-making power to the right people and make the dismissals process much easier for them to navigate. As I said, it would be foolish of me to say a blanket yes or no; it depends on the case.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government propose to move away from human rights to a Bill of Rights. One is bound to ask: what is wrong with human rights? Why is there a distancing from human rights in the title?

After the horrors of world wars, an international approach and reaffirmation of human rights principles were needed. In Europe these have never been more necessary than at present. The European convention and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights were supported across the board from the United Kingdom. Largely, what was done was to embody and import common-law principles. These are complicated and reflect the principles we have enjoyed since the Magna Carta. The United Kingdom can be proud of its achievement.

Building on this, the Human Rights Act 1998 was to bring convention rights home. We should regard as a success the crucial task of enabling and ensuring the effective enforcement of those rights. It has withstood the test of time, skilled in the balance it struck between the important principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary.

Decisions of the Strasbourg court are to be taken account of, no less and no more, but in the case of primary legislation, even the power of the UK court does not go beyond making a declaration of incompatibility. The rule of law is maintained. It is not broken and so does not need to be fixed. On the contrary, it is not to disrespect the role of democracy and of the majority to ensure that minorities are included and not abused or oppressed. Civilised conduct is promoted and totalitarianism is confronted. Democracy does not accept a lack of constraint and restraint upon executive access. The public interest criteria and the collective interest are not neglected in striking a proper balance.

When appropriate, the UK courts decline to follow Strasbourg cases. They do not do so slavishly, and they explain why. The Government have failed to make a case for departing from the recommendations of the Gross report, which was a well-reasoned and persuasive analysis.

Finally, and importantly, in parallel with our Human Rights Act there has been the peace process in Northern Ireland, to which the human rights convention made a significant contribution. At a time when the process is under threat, not only from the consequences of Brexit but from the Government’s attitude to the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol—to which they agreed, as an international treaty—it is crucial that human rights are not thwarted.

Beyond Brexit: Policing, Law Enforcement and Security (EUC Report)

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who chaired this committee in a masterclass way throughout Covid. I also thank the clerks and the technical staff of this House, because without them this report would not be here today. We had a marvellous period of time when we did not see each other but no meeting was missed and there were no real technical problems. I thank everybody who assisted us on that.

The Lugano Convention is not exclusively an EU measure. On the contrary, it creates common rules regarding jurisdiction and the enforcement and recognition of civil, commercial and family judgments across the EU and most of EFTA. It was concluded in 1988 as an international agreement and was given effect in the United Kingdom in 1991. However, the United Kingdom left it with Brexit. It can rejoin the convention, but only with the unanimous agreement of all the parties.

I support the United Kingdom’s intention to seek membership, but it is most unfortunate, to say the least, that the Government waited until April 2020. Accordingly, there has been an entirely avoidable hiatus between the end of the Brexit transition period and the safety net provided by the Lugano Convention and reciprocal enforcement. As the Government acknowledged, this means that issues relating to jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement are becoming more complex, in particular in child abduction cases and difficult family law and maintenance cases, and when one partner or another absconds, or both live in a different place and the children are here.

I have two questions. First, what are the reasons for this damaging delay? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to engage with the EU, and in particular Denmark, to reach a satisfactory and speedy resolution? In the circumstances we have seen in the last few weeks, it is even more important that we come to a conclusion and that it is accepted.

Forensic Science Regulator Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this Bill is long overdue. I welcomed the presentation by my noble friend Lord Kennedy, which set out the Bill and left very little to say except that the Bill had been sitting on the shelf for some time during the Cameron and May Governments.

Forensic science is vital in almost every criminal matter. In the other place, Bambos Charalambous MP stressed the importance of ensuring that forensic science standards were met because of the “catastrophic impact” on the criminal justice system if they were not. He said that the powers of the Bill were welcome and “long overdue” but acknowledged that due to

“the substantial cuts and continuing squeeze on police budgets”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/9/21; col. 1304.]

as well as financial pressures on the private forensic science services sector, it was important that regulation did not place an additional load on the workforce or place financial burdens on small private providers. The extra funding has been in place since early last year. He very much hoped that this will not be cut. This Bill’s remaining stages in the other place took place on 12 March 2021. We must ensure that the Bill goes through this House, giving forensic science all the powers in the Bill, and the funding, and giving extra powers to the regulator, as necessary.

Poor-quality forensic science leads to failed prosecutions and failure to secure justice for victims. Furthermore, this is a STEM subject, and should be on syllabuses, encouraging girls at school to train. At the World Economic Forum, it was recognised that the shortage of forensic scientists is a crisis. The House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee also recognised this. It is very important that we go out of our way to ensure that there is training and good job retention in the long term.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I totally acknowledge the noble Lord’s final point. It is also refreshing to hear a man say that he knows how women feel. I feel like that if I go for a run at night, and I thank him—I wish that there were more like him.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my heart goes out to the family and friends of Sarah Everard—this is a nightmare that every parent has. I support the other speakers today and will ask the Minister about the Tom Winsor inquiry, which she mentioned. First, what are its terms, who else will be involved and what are its timings? It is important that it starts quickly, has short and sharp terms and reports within the next few months. It must not be an inquiry that goes on for years—the public and we would not take it seriously. Secondly, like many Members of this House, I have been on a number of demonstrations over my lifetime, and I have never seen the police behave in the way that they did on Saturday night. What is in the police training, towards men and women, that involves throwing a woman to the ground and jumping on her?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the inquiry will establish just what did happen and the events that led up to Saturday night. As I said to a previous questioner, the scope and terms of the review will be announced and laid very quickly. I agree with the noble Baroness that it should take place at pace.

Refugees: Napier Barracks

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I refer the noble Lord back to the answer that I have just gave to my noble friend Lord Balfe, and the answer is yes.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

On 28 January I asked the Minister what conditions in the barracks were like, and she assured me that they were fit for purpose. In the last few days and weeks we have seen articles in the newspapers and on the news—these barracks are not fit for purpose and we should do our utmost to find other accommodation, remembering that at some point these asylum seekers will become citizens of Great Britain, or they will go elsewhere. What will they think of us as a nation and the way we have treated them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I have probably answered the noble Baroness’s question but, absolutely, there has been additional demand on the system, and we have accommodated it. However, to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we need to process those claims as and when it is safe to do so and either grant people asylum or return them to their country of origin.

EU-UK Joint Political Declaration on Asylum and Returns

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I know I will disappoint the noble Lord when I say that I will not be giving a running commentary on discussions but, yes, they have started and will be ongoing.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, these events have occurred against a background of reports of disturbing reforms in the British asylum system, including having asylum seekers in places where it is impossible for them to gain access to complete their asylum forms and to get medical attention. What will the world think of Britain’s reputation when we are not being very helpful to future generations and those who have families here in the UK? Will the Minister follow through from her answer to my noble friend and say when we are really going to start being serious about assisting these families and individuals?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I completely reject the notion that our asylum accommodation is not fit for purpose. The barracks that we used last year and continue to use are of a standard that we would expect in terms of access to medical and legal assistance. The accommodation is fully equipped to deal with anybody’s needs in terms of medical attention and legal requirements.