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.