Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. There are a number of issues that we agree on, and I will not repeat them. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lemos on the work he is doing on the Bill and look forward to working with him on some of the issues that I have been working on. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt, who is a very good friend, on the work she has done on the Bill and thank her very much for the time that she given to so many people. She has gone over and above. I thank the Hillsborough families and the families of victims of other awful incidents that have happened where people have not been able to find the truth, who I had the pleasure to work with and meet. I thank the organisations that arranged all the meetings that we were able to have, including our one-to-one meetings on Zoom and so on with families. It is so important, and they all welcome the Bill very much.

I welcome this Second Reading of the Hillsborough law Bill. I start by paying my respects to the victims of the 1989 disaster and the bereaved families who have campaigned tirelessly for nearly four decades to receive their most basic need: the truth about what happened to their loved ones. I welcome the Bill and believe that it will significantly strengthen our judicial system and the processes that affect survivors, families and victims. The Bill embodies what the duty of candour is: to supplement and strengthen data and its disclosure.

First, I will take a moment to discuss the role of the survivor and the bereaved family—who quite often are ignored and pushed aside—within the new process due to be established. The Hillsborough families, devastated by the loss of their loved ones, spent decades in pursuit of information on what happened that tragic day. Without help from others they would not have got there. I thank all those who helped to give them the strength to continue with their fight, while all the while state institutions actively acted in what was a cover-up. This compounded the tragedy of their loss, with their journey for the truth taking decades of pain and anger at the systems that should have protected them. What these families experienced reflected a wider culture where candour had become a rare exception.

I therefore welcome the

“duty of candour and assistance”

that forms the heart of the Bill. During the process of designing ethical codes of practice and conduct, I hope that the Government take heed of the advice of families who have witnessed the system at first hand and work in close consultation with those who have lived through the process, so that the changes reflect the needs of those affected most deeply in practice. A survivor-centred approach is crucial to make this work for those families and for future families and individuals who may have to go through these situations, as we have seen in the health service recently and in other incidents that have been mentioned tonight, so that the delivery is both appropriate and sensitive to their needs and care, and so that they are not pushed aside.

Secondly, I turn to the Bill’s provisions for legal aid and parity of representation. Extending non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person is a significant and welcome step that corrects the imbalance that has long left grieving families representing themselves or with a friend, quite often without legal help, against a well-resourced state body. We know from Inquest how it has had to work with families to try to get the truth. It is absolutely important that the legal aid budget should be increased. It is not about moving money from one place to another. The legal aid budget must be increased to take care of these issues, not move them about. We have had too many cuts in legal aid over the past 10 years; it is important that that is taken into account. It is key to making the Bill work. We have support from the Law Society, the Bar Council and from other legal entities.

The number of cases could be even more than thought. I think that the figure that I know people are quite worried about is right. I have asked various people about it and it could go up to 11,000, which shows how great the need has been.

Also, we really have to ensure that families do not have to go to other people to raise money. It should be a natural way of life that legal aid should be available. They should be represented properly and to know what happened at that time. The legal profession must ensure that providers’ capacity and funding keep pace with this welcomed expansion.

The Bill gives the bereaved families and survivors, many of whom are women who have carried this campaign for years, a firmer foundation on which they can seek the truth. Although the Bill cannot change the culture overnight, it marks significant progress in our protection of those who have been harmed by the state’s institutions and will dissuade future cover-ups—we do not know what has happened in these recent railway incidents and other ones that have happened just recently. It is important that the Bill is passed and that it works. How it is going to work is what matters after we get the Bill through. We all then have to work on the next stage of how it is implemented.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendment 45, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I apologise to the Minister for being unable to come to her briefing. It was at the same time as my Committee of the House, so I was pulled deeply. We may be able to discuss these issues at another time, but I thank her for the opportunity.

The amendment would ensure that police forces across England and Wales have access to victim navigators to support modern slavery victims. This would fulfil the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which stated:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


The provision of victim navigators will be essential to achieving the Safeguarding Minister’s pledge to drive up the prosecutions of modern slavery predators. It will help to fulfil the Government’s mission of safer streets, including tackling violence against women and girls, and achieve their election promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first by enabling more successful prosecutions and convictions of traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable.

An independent economic impact assessment concluded in 2025 that a single victim navigator benefitted the country by £150,000. This came through saving police costs, reducing victims’ needs and thus the cost of support, and increasing convictions ensuring that predators are dealt with and victims give evidence. This is vital. It also saves the exploitation of further victims.

The chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority described the benefit of victims having a victim navigator:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police recently said:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I support this amendment. It is rare that we have an amendment that goes way back on good practice.

After the riots in 1990, Northumbria Police introduced a way of monitoring and mentoring witnesses going to court. At that stage, that part of the country had the highest crime rate in Europe in relation to car crime and the like. As a result of the monitoring and mentoring—where an officer was paired up with witnesses to go to court—there was an increase of five in the convictions in that area, and it is well documented that crime in that part of the country went down by record levels, still not beaten.

Navigators are surely an expansion of the scheme and will probably deal with more difficult cases than we were dealing with in Northumbria. We know that, in trafficking and slave trafficking, it is extremely difficult to get people to come forward and give evidence, and that when they do, with the justice system as it stands at the moment, taking four to five years to get to the Crown Court, there needs to be an extra delivery to the witnesses. It is the victims who will achieve something in relation to the benefits of this.

The argument from certain quarters, I guess, will be that this is going to cost more money. That is not the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, there are massive savings in this. If it is £150,000 for each case, you only have to combine that with multiples to make the sum extraordinary.

I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is a scheme, in a different way, that worked and was created as best practice by the Prime Minister of the time, John Major. It is an old scheme that is practical and works. So, from my point of view and that of my colleagues I have talked to—you have already heard quoted a detective sergeant, but there are others higher up the tree, and constables—we would welcome this as a positive step forward.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

As it stands, there is a significant gap in the law in the UK which prevents victims seeking compensation. Amendment 417 seeks to close that gap, and it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on Amendments 417 and 419. I will not repeat what I and my colleagues have said many times in this House. I am, however, most anxious about the compensation money that does not go to these countries and these people. We are told that it is in the Treasury in some cases; we ask about interest; and we have had a debate with, and letters from, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. But these amendments could really change things, so that everybody would know where the interest is going, where the money for the victims is going, where it is held, how it is given, how it is sent, and who is in receipt of it. This is vital, because we can see what is happening in Ukraine, which will need much more support; and we know that this is happening in Russia and elsewhere.

Also, we work on the case of the DRC all the time; we know what is happening there and in other countries. It is vital that this be included in the Bill. It would make such a difference to so many people around the world, and it would deal with the perpetrators. So I hope the Government will look at this. Finally, I would like to thank Redress for all the support it has given to us, along with writing to the departments and so on.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have sent me emails and letters, both against and for the Bill. The vast majority of the mail I have received has been asking me to vote—if there is a vote—and speak against the Bill.

In the 1970s, I had the pleasure of being introduced to Dame Cicely Saunders and going to her hospice, and I spent a number of years talking to her and helping with her. I became very involved in the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice in Glasgow, with which I still have close links and which has done a great deal of pioneering work in palliative care. I would like to see palliative care assisted by the Government much more, including in the home. Not everybody should have to leave home to die; most people would prefer to be in their own home.

“Assisted dying” is a euphemism. This is an assisted suicide Bill—let us call a spade a spade. Nor is the Bill about alleviating suffering. Eligibility for assisted suicide does not require suffering. Other countries have this type of legislation, with acute suffering as a condition for eligibility. In this Bill, there is a very low threshold for eligibility. There is also concern about coercion, and a vulnerable individual being manipulated into this decision.

I quote from an American psychiatric journal:

“Psychiatrists with ethical objections to assisted suicide advocated a higher … more extensive review of a decision.”


The standard for deciding whether a person has the competence to make this decision is not a scientific one. It is difficult to determine whether a person even has the mental capacity to make such a definite decision. How are we to determine standards and thresholds for deciding whether a person has a specific capability to consent to a physical assisted suicide? What happens when doctors cannot decide, or if one of the two doctors changes their mind or does not agree? The Bill poses questions about the ethics of evaluating competence when it is partly determined by the individual values of the attending doctors.

Facilitating the taking of human life is a poor solution to improving the quality of end-of-life care. As I said at the beginning of my few words, we should be putting much more effort and funds into palliative care in the home, in hospices or in a mixture of both.

British Bill of Rights

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have a dualist system rather than a monist system. Neither Parliament nor the courts are bound by international law, but a member of the Executive, including a Minister such as myself, is obliged to follow international law, whether it is reflected in the Ministerial Code or not. All Ministers will be aware of their obligations under the rule of law.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

Why was the decision taken by the Foreign Office and the Cabinet to downgrade human rights?

[Lord Faulks]

I do not believe that there was any downgrading of human rights. We have a proud history of protecting human rights, both here and abroad, and we will continue to maintain our concern for those human rights.

House of Lords: Reform

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, I am a radical. I believe in parliamentary reform—of both Houses. Scrutiny of legislation is only one example of where improvement is required, but it is illogical to focus exclusively on this House. On the contrary, it is only in the context of both Houses that one can identify the functions of this House and it is only after defining the functions of this House that one can sensibly approach the question of its composition.

I am a democrat—I believe in a fully elected House of Commons and the primacy of that House. That, of course, is what we have. To that extent, I am in favour of the status quo. No case has been made out that any weaknesses of this House will be cured by the proposed change in composition. No confidence can be maintained that the strengths of this House may not be impaired—far from it. The one certainty is that there will be uncertainty and confusion about primacy and the relationship between the two Houses. There is the potential for paralysis. It is naive to suppose that if this House were elected its Members would not consider that this elected House had at least equal legitimacy to the other elected House.

To meet this point, it is proposed that there should be different electoral systems, but that is merely digging a deeper hole. It is bizarre to be considering an alternative voting system just after it has been rejected in a referendum. More seriously, those who believe that the single transferable vote or proportional representation, or whatever, is superior to first past the post will inevitably consider that this House enjoys the greater legitimacy of the two. It is nothing short of absurd to imagine that the conventions that govern the relationship between the two Houses would remain anything like the same. These proposals are ill thought out. The hybridity will not command support in the country.

At a time of acute constraints on public expenditure, expense will be incurred. We saw the figures yesterday, while yesterday’s Gallup poll highlighted the problems of well-being for low-income families. Those are the issues that we should be discussing in this House and the other House.

These proposals will monopolise parliamentary time, not only over the issue of new creations but because they envisage removing those who were, unquestionably, appointed for life. They will therefore turn an appointed House into a disappointed House, which will need to scrutinise, at the least, the transitional arrangements. I welcome the establishment of the Joint Committee of both Houses to consider all these matters in detail. However, for most Members of this House, and certainly for the general public, there are greater priorities.