Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

240: Clause 77, page 104, line 13, leave out from first “relevant” to end of line 14 and insert “local authority.”

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248B, 263 and 265. I have also added my name to Amendments 257 and 264, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which I strongly support. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not able to be in his place today, but I share his concerns about protecting children from harm. These two amendments seek to fill the gap caused by Clause 84, which was raised in Committee, and I believe they are proportionate. The current clause does not cover a multitude of ways in which reports of abuse can be concealed, and it allows many who intentionally conceal to slip through the net.

Clause 84 is triggered only when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone under the new duty from making a report, so the two amendments seek to strengthen what is currently there. It is broader than the current clause, which we believe currently means that it would be a two-tier system. I am not sure how we can justify an offence that would criminalise a teacher but not a religious leader.

Many of the amendments in my name were taken from my Private Member’s Bill on this, but I took some time to consider what should be a priority, and those are Amendments 246 and 248B. For clarity, I will not be seeking to divide on any others in my name in the group, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on Amendments 246 and 248B.

Like others, I have been working on this issue for a number of years. In 2015 the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, asked me to author a report on duty of care in sport. Mandatory reporting was high on the list of issues that needed to be resolved, the other being positions of trust, where the loophole has now partially been closed.

Coaches and volunteers have very positive relationships with young people. These amendments are not to overburden them but to offer protection. Individuals may be worried about reporting so they need more guidance, and a framework of law will do that. No one wants to get it wrong, and we have to be mindful that there may be some malicious reporting.

As a young athlete in my early 20s, I witnessed inappropriate behaviour by a coach—nothing that I could quite put my finger on. You could argue that it was another time when less was known, but we are now seeing a number of historic cases. When I was a young athlete, there was no framework, policy or procedure to be able to raise it. I did not quite have the words to express what I saw, I did not have evidence, I did not witness abuse and there was no direct disclosure, but what I was trying to explain might have triggered greater awareness of this behaviour. I did not know what I now know. Years later, that coach was charged with historic offences in the 1970s and sentenced to seven and a half years in jail.

When the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was announced, I expected much movement. In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. IICSA concluded that child sexual abuse was endemic and permeated all sections of society, and it estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys have been sexually abused in the UK every year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse.

The IICSA report is quoted in the equality impact assessment saying that current arrangements are confusing, unfocused and ineffective. The Local Government Association estimates that only one in three children who are sexually abused by an adult tell someone. According to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse, and changes need to be made.

I do not believe that His Majesty’s Government’s proposals go far enough and may make the public think that the IICSA mandatory reporting recommendations are being acted on. I do not believe it will make enough of a difference. The key item in the equality impact assessment is table 1 in paragraph 31, on page 9. Given that the Children’s Commissioner for England estimated in 2015 that only one in eight cases of abuse comes to the attention of the authorities, an increase in reports of 0.3% would bring the proportion of unreported cases from 87.5% all the way down to 87.46%. An increase of 0.3% in the numbers of reports would bring the proportion of reported abuse up from 12.5% to 12.54%.

I will not attempt to pre-guess what the Minister might say, but I am imagining a response that it might stop adults wanting to work with children. That is why I looked at Amendment 246, which would make non-reporting a criminal offence. This was recommended by IICSA to provide for defences in situations where there is reasonable doubt concerning the grounds for suspicion. There are criminal sanctions in many countries—Australia, Croatia, Canada, France and most US states.

It has been a pleasure to work on this issue with the honourable Member for North West Cambridgeshire, Sam Carling MP, who wrote the brilliant Amendment 248B. He also has an adjournment debate tonight on this very topic, and I look forward to that. I thank him for venturing down to our end of the building to sit and listen to this debate. I think both of us would prefer a criminal offence, but I am trying to be pragmatic. The proposed new clause in Amendment 248B seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences. Sam Carling has met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which all want to see His Majesty’s Government criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. He has also met a number of other organisations.

The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence of non-compliance are not enough. While not wanting sanctions that would lead to a criminal record, it very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines. Based on these conversations, Sam’s amendment, which I have tabled, describes how civil sanctions would work based on Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act.

The NSPCC said:

“The use of civil sanctions for failing to make a report under the mandatory duty is supported by the NSPCC. It is their belief that civil and professional sanctions strike the right balance between giving this duty the teeth it needs to ensure compliance, and also framing it as a tool meant to uplift and empower our child protection workforce and volunteers”.


The NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger.

Further, two of the IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday urging her to change course on these issues. They are concerned that the only sanction proposed for the failure to report child sexual abuse under the duty in this Bill is a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. They said:

“This falls far below what was recommended. Many of the organisations which our report criticised for failing to safeguard children from abuse rely extensively on volunteers who are often not DBS checked or regulated … DBS referral is already a requirement for regulated activity providers when it comes to those believed to pose a risk to children, and it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. We are therefore calling on the Government to, at the very least, implement stronger civil sanctions for failure to comply with the duty”.


They reported no evidence of the “chilling effect” that would discourage people from wanting to work with children. It simply is not there. They go on to urge His Majesty’s Government to strengthen the duty in the Bill to better deliver on the promises they have repeatedly made to implement IICSA.

My final point is about Amendment 262, which is not in my name but in those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton. If they seek to divide the House, I would very strongly support their amendments as well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for missing the beginning of her speech on Amendment 240. However, I have checked with the clerk and I believe it is in order that I speak to my amendments in this group.

Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments I made on these and similar amendments in Committee. I will describe what each of my four amendments does and pray in aid not only the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse but a letter, which I will quote from, that members of the board of IICSA wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday last. Having spent seven years hearing evidence about CSA and the reasons why it has been hidden, and having reported in 2022, they were very disappointed when this Bill was published, and even more disappointed when they heard the Minister’s rejection of the measures in these amendments in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to noble Lords who raised the issue, we will look at and respond to the letter from the IICSA members, but I have not seen it, I have not got it in front of me and I am not going to respond to it today, even if it is passed to me, because I have to have some collective discussion with colleagues about the points that are raised. I just say to my noble friend that what the Government have tried to do since 4 July 2025—again, I pray in aid the statement, if he has not looked at it, of 9 April 2025 —is to meet the objectives of IICSA as far as we can. We have met an awful lot of the objectives that have been set, and they are before the House in the legislation today.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I apologise that the Minister has not seen the letter. If I had realised that he had not seen it, I would have made sure he did. I recognise that it is difficult for him to respond to a letter that he has not seen. Will the Minister make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that, if I do not move Amendment 248B, we will be able to have a discussion and I will be able to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, if we are not able to find a suitable route through?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be helpful, if I can. I do not want to have amendments at Third Reading, and therefore I cannot help the noble Baroness with that request. As I say, I have not seen the letter. It is in the ether of the Home Office system. It has arrived, so it will be acknowledged and responded to. But it was issued only on Friday, as the noble Baroness mentioned; to be fair to the Home Office, that is an issue that we will have to look at. Obviously, we will respond to that letter. I will make sure that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Grey-Thompson, have the response, if appropriate, because they have raised it today. I will check with IICSA that it is happy for me to do so—that is important.

The further amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 248A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also seek to supplement or remove the criminal offence of preventing a reporter carrying out their duty. Amendments 264 and 248A would provide for proposed thresholds that, again, I cannot accept. The proposed thresholds—when a person “suspects” abuse has taken place, even if that suspicion is poorly founded, the alleged offence never occurred or the relevant concealment actions had no actual effect—are far broader, and harder to justify or prosecute, than interference with a well-known statutory duty. The Government’s preferred model for this type of offence is narrowly targeted, purpose driven and clearly aligned.

On Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on protection for reporters, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 already provides a legal framework for protecting child abuse whistleblowers from dismissal, victimisation or other workplace detriments. Attempting to legislate against, for example, social shunning, reputational harm or informal exclusion would pose significant legal and practical problems.

This Government have progressed the recommendations on IICSA in a significant way since 4 July 2024 when we took office—the House may disagree; that is a matter for the House to take a view on. Beforehand, there was a significant gap of inactivity for a range of reasons that I will not talk about today. We have put potential measures in the Bill, and we have made, through a range of other measures to which I referred earlier, a significant amount of progress on these issues.

I accept that there may be issues that are still being pressed, but the progress that has been made is significant. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to withdraw her amendment and I invite the House to support the government amendments I introduced earlier.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was able to speak. She has worked extensively in this area for decades, and I have leant heavily on her expertise. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, makes the strongest point on the unusual nature of a board writing to the Home Secretary. As I previously said, I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to see that. On page 1 of the letter, paragraph 2 says:

“we are deeply concerned that the mandatory reporting duty, as currently drafted in the Crime and Policing Bill, does not fully reflect our recommendation. In particular, there is: a lack of appropriate sanction for failure to report; an insufficient definition of who should be a mandated reporter; and a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse”.

I go with the opinion of Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank and, as much as this Government have moved things on, they have not moved things on far enough. While I am happy not to press my Amendments 240 to 246, when it is called I will seek to divide the House on Amendment 248B.

Amendment 240 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

248B: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Penalty for failure to uphold duty to report suspected child sex offences(1) The Secretary of State may give a person who acts contrary to section 77 (duty to report suspected child sex offences) a notice requiring them to pay a penalty of a specified amount not exceeding the prescribed maximum.(2) The Secretary of State must issue, and from time to time revise and re-issue, a code of practice specifying factors to be considered by them in determining the amount of a penalty imposed under this section, as well as factors which they will use to assess if the issuance of a penalty would be in the public interest.(3) A penalty notice must—(a) state why the Secretary of State thinks the person is liable to the penalty,(b) state the amount of the penalty,(c) specify a date, at least 28 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid,(d) specify how the penalty must be paid,(e) explain how the person may make an appeal against the penalty, and(f) explain how the Secretary of State may enforce the penalty.(4) Any person in receipt of a penalty notice under this section may appeal to the county court on the ground that they are not liable to the imposition of a penalty because—(a) they are not required to comply with the duty to report child sex offences under section 77,(b) a relevant exemption from that section applies,(c) a report under the duty was made and therefore the penalty was issued in error, or(d) the amount of the penalty is too high.(5) The court may—(a) allow the appeal and cancel the penalty,(b) allow the appeal and reduce the penalty, or(c) dismiss the appeal.(6) An appeal shall be a re-hearing of the Secretary of State's decision to impose a penalty, and shall be determined having regard to— (a) the code of practice under this section that has effect at the time of the appeal, and(b) any other matters which the court thinks relevant (which may include matters of which the Secretary of State was unaware).(7) An appeal must be brought within 28 days of the date the notice was received by the person upon whom it was issued.(8) A penalty under this section is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court. Where action is taken to recovery a penalty under this section, the penalty is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court.(9) Money paid to the Secretary of State by way of penalty must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment 146, in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton, to which I have added my name. It concerns care homes and a duty on the commissioner to identify and monitor emerging risk and report systemic risk to the Secretary of State so that preventive steps can be taken. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has so ably introduced it, I simply convey the apologies from my noble friend Lady Eaton, who sent them last night.

The other amendments that I support in this group—Amendments 436, 439 and 913—I will not go into, in the interests of parity. The last one is about conflict of interest. The others seek to put a duty on the commissioners to serve as an extra safeguard, so that the exercise of the commissioner will not simply be to tick boxes but to request further paperwork if necessary, or that the families will be notified, as in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean. That can act as a trigger for a discussion with the families and perhaps prevent the coercion which can happen.

Amendment 913 seeks to prevent those involved with organisations promoting assisted dying, whether as volunteers or employees, being a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or on the staff. There is a conflict of interest if those who have a responsibility for seeing that procedures for assisted suicide are not abused should themselves be actively committed to the cause of promoting assisted suicide. The conflict of interest is so self-evident. I imagine that it is an oversight that a clause to this effect was not included in the original Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, the sponsor, could comment on that and tell us whether he envisages a conflict of interest and how best we can prevent it.

I associate myself with the very strong expression of support for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who tabled Amendment 913. The support was to give sympathy against the attack on one of the leading medical authorities in this country—a specialist in palliative care who has put her knowledge, expertise and time at the service of those most in need of palliative care. She has done so with her time and her knowledge. Not only that but she has served this country in all kinds of ways: teaching students, seeing patients and building up her profession, which is one of the most important specialisms in medicine. She also gives such service to this House, giving her time selflessly, with her knowledgeable contributions and in sitting on the Woolsack, night after night. We owe her an enormous debt of gratitude, not only in this Chamber but in the whole country.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, the first of which is Amendment 125. I am concerned because the Bill as it stands leaves the responsibility of appointing the commissioner to the Prime Minister alone, with no guarantee of the usual safeguards that are applied to public appointments. As a Cross-Bencher and someone who has been through the independent process— I owe my seat in the Chamber to that process— I believe it is vital.

In October 2025, the Cabinet Office released an updated Governance Code on Public Appointments. The first two requirements are for integrity and openness: Ministers must declare and resolve any interests and relationships, and the processes for making public appointments should be open and transparent. My amendment seeks to bring more transparency and openness, but would leave the final decision with the Prime Minister—once, of course, they have consulted with Welsh Ministers.

There are no such requirements in the Bill for this, just that the commissioner must hold, or have held, office as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court. That is a reasonable assumption. However, there is no requirement for the commissioner to declare and resolve any interests and relationships or for the appointment process to be open and transparent. We have to declare virtually everything that we do, so it is not inappropriate that the commissioner should have to do so as well.

I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. That person has to command respect. However, the reason I am asking for this is also to safeguard the individual. We see in the amendments today that the Bill is weak on data and reporting provisions.

My noble friend Lady Finlay raised what has happened in New Zealand. Simon O’Connor, a former New Zealand MP, described some troubling incidents there around the two doctors. Dr Dana Wensley resigned due to her concerns regarding serious problems with the committee’s ability to oversee the implementation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Dr Wensley is an ethicist. Dr Jane Greville, a palliative care specialist, was pushed out, it is thought, because she was raising too many concerns about the operation of the new law. Both Dr Greville and Dr Wensley went public and stated that the committee’s oversight of the law was so limited that wrongful deaths could go undetected. They cited being extremely concerned about how little information they received relating to patient death, leaving them feeling constrained to the point of irrelevance. They both said that the system was so broken that they would not have been able to identify if somebody had wrongly died.

What happens if normal standards are not followed? We can compare it to someone with significant shares in a drug company being able to decide what drugs the National Health Service could use. As others have said, the assisted dying commissioner will have tremendous oversight. They can make appointments to the list of persons eligible to sit on the assisted dying review panels. They can make arrangements in relation to panels, determine applications for reconsideration and monitor the operation of the Act. This role should be defined by Parliament, not by their own ideas. I would like the noble and learned Lord to give assurance that this appointment process will be looked at to see how we can ensure that the Nolan principles for public appointments will be adhered to.

Looking at the possible scenarios, this individual could be called into a meeting with the Chief Medical Officer to discuss the future of palliative care. They will hold a great deal of power in their hands.

At the Lords Select Committee, Justice Minister Sarah Sackman confirmed that there would be no support to engage or challenge the commissioner. I am very interested in the noble and learned Lord’s view on whether legal aid would be possible to do this. In the case of exceptional funding in coroners’ cases, we might have to be in the position where a person is dead before they get any support to challenge the decision that was taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, raised some interesting points in this group of amendments. I do not have the noble Lord’s experience of local councils—I declare that I am president of the LGA, but that is largely an honorary role—but I have a lot of experience of wheelchair services. I also declare that I am president of the Wheelchair Alliance.

A service that should be incredibly easy to provide has become one of the most complex parts of NHS funding. In the good old days, when I was a child, there were two choices of chair: a small one and a large one. These days, because we want to provide better wheelchairs for people, which is a good thing, the commissioning and provision of those services has become complicated, and in different areas different prices are paid for exactly the same chair. My concern is that, if we cannot do that for something as simple as wheelchair services, how are we going to do it for this process? Many wheelchairs should be provided within 18 weeks, but I know cases where it has taken years to provide a chair for a child. We should learn from previous experience.

Some noble Lords have mentioned the potential competition that could come from funding for this service and the challenges for palliative care. However, the consensus among several professional bodies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Association for Palliative Medicine, is that assisted dying should have distinct funding. Others have mentioned the way that palliative care is currently funded in the UK, but Nancy Preston, who gave oral evidence as well as written evidence co-written with a professor at Lancaster, Suzanne Ost, expressed concern that it would communicate the wrong symbolic message.

I am one of the seven Peers who were in the Observer for my number of amendments. I am receiving lots of emails telling me I need to uphold the will of the people, but I am not sure the people have been asked how they would like to reprioritise the funding of the NHS. I accept that lot of people think the service is needed, but are they being given the choice of what else they might lose? The comments by Stephen Kinnock, who said there needs to be reprioritisation, were interesting. We need to be really clear what we are going to lose out on. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, made some interesting points about savings and cost, but for me that is more about how you schedule the payments and work through it.

I am more concerned about the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the incentive to encourage people to go down this route. In Belgium, the service is paid for through the national health and the doctors receive a fee of €180. The cost of the procedure in Canada is $2,327, and it is estimated that they spend about $22.3 million a year to put this service in place. They save $149 million, but for provincial healthcare that is a negligible saving—it is 0.08% of their budget.

Stephen Kinnock talked about doctors receiving a reasonable expense. I have raised the issue of “reasonable” in terms of the Equality Act before. What actually is it reasonable for a doctor to be paid? In Australia, 27% of the doctors were unpaid while 32% got direct state government reimbursement, but a conversation is going on there at the moment about whether clinicians should have to be altruistic to provide this service. Doctors are already talking about having a standardised price for a voluntary assisted dying assessment of $860 as an out-of-pocket expense. That is important because a lot of assumptions are being made about where this service is going to be provided. The reality is that if we are going to give people a choice, we need to give them a real choice.

This is probably going to come up in later groups as well, but I have also noticed a shift in the language, which originally talked about doctors and now we are talking about medical practitioners. Does this mean it could be physician assistants? Could it be nurses? Could someone else be trained to do this? Could there be a career path in this service? Might people think this a good step in their career? The reality is that somebody always pays: the question is just who and when.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, to some extent this group of amendments goes to the core of a lot of the potential downsides of this Bill because, whether we like it or not, it is going to be a source of coercion.

If we go back a few weeks to the issue that was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, concerning the role and the purpose of the National Health Service, clearly, that would need to be changed because we are talking here about a mechanism for ending life rather than a service that does its best to preserve life. To anybody who has had to spend a lot of time around hospitals—be it as a consumer of, or a relative of a consumer of, NHS services; or if you have had any role in government, even at regional level, dealing with health services—it is inconceivable that looking at the balance sheet is not going to be an issue for a clinician and a trust. That is the nature of the beast if you are the finance director of a trust and it is over budget, as they nearly all are. In Canada, we see that some people are boasting about the money they have saved by providing assisted deaths. I do not believe for one moment that that factor can be airbrushed out of this equation as far as this legislation is concerned. While I do not necessarily accept or agree with every amendment in this group, it draws our attention to the principles at stake.

It is in those circumstances that we have got into the habit in this debate of euphemisms. We call one thing by a certain name, but we know it actually means something else. In that regard, I draw the attention of the Committee to a debate on assisted dying that took place during the last iteration of this Bill, proposed by Lady Meacher, on 22 October 2021. This is the point I want to try to get across. Incidentally, that Bill had 13 clauses and 10 pages, compared to the 59 clauses and 51 pages we are looking at today. After Lady Meacher proposed her Bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who I think is not in his place, spoke. He said that the Bill should refer to “euthanasia” rather than “assisted dying” as the Bill’s title did not represent what was intended. He went on to provide the Greek definition of what the word “euthanasia” means.

These amendments go to the core of a couple of issues. The first is the rationale behind the National Health Service in the first place, and how it would be changed and turned if it is carrying out a service which is anything but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I have already spoken to Amendment 459 and am finishing off speaking to it.

I will move on to Amendments 475 and 939 in Schedule 2. There is concern over the operation of the panels and safeguarding responsibilities, just in terms of the information that comes forward. Someone with relevant information would be allowed to come forward to the panel with appropriate evidence and be afforded whistleblower protection, in the type of situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, where there is a new person on the scene who others may feel has malintent, for one reason or another.

In the Bill’s current model, medical assessments that have previously gone to the panel will not be monitored contemporaneously. They could be poorly reported, they will not be reviewed and this could hide errors, unconscious bias and discrimination. The role of the panel will be to issue a certificate. In Amendment 493, I have suggested that the certificate should have validity for six months and, in the event that the person has a longer prognosis—we have many examples of that—it is renewable rather than having to start the process again because they have outlived their prognosis.

However, the appeal mechanism to a panel seems to be one-sided. The person can appeal against a refusal to give them a certificate, but there does not seem to be a mechanism for appeal. My Amendment 499 seeks to allow information to be brought to the panel that it may not have known about when it gave a certificate. This may relate to domestic abuse that had been hidden, to coercion or pressure, to any information that the diagnosis may have been wrong, to recent emotional or psychological trauma, or to depression or metabolic disturbance which might have impaired capacity.

Amendment 932 is a very practical one concerning the provision and distribution of panels around England and Wales. It has not been made clear how many panels there would be or that there needs to be fair distribution. I have suggested a minimum of three per region in England and a minimum of three in Wales. For the geography, topography and population, I think three would work for Wales. However, areas of England with high population density, or very large rural areas, would probably need more to enable the panel to visit the patient face to face for an assessment. It is completely inappropriate to expect a patient to go to see a panel when they are already ill or to rely on remote consultation rather than having the ability for face-to-face discussion. Those face-to-face discussions must be subject to the confidentiality that you would expect in any medical consultation. I hope that we will not be suggesting that this would be publicly available.

I suggest that, as has been said, these panels came in two-thirds of the way through and a panel can take testimony from others. However, in terms of getting information about the person, as the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services said in Committee on this Bill:

“It is not a court or a tribunal … They can make the request, but they cannot compel someone to attend”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, 12/3/25; col. 1102.]

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been debated this afternoon, and those raised by the noble Lord, Weir, on the impact on disabled people. I seem to have completely failed in all the debates to get across the fear that disabled people feel with this Bill being debated.

Jennyfer Hatch in Canada had Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, experienced organ failure and was approved for MAID. It made me think of the letter that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, this week, about the combination of illnesses that would qualify a person for this service. That is why disabled people are so worried. The combination of their disability and other conditions would make them eligible, even though we have been told that there is nothing to worry about. Can the Minister confirm what I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said when she wrote to us: that a combination of impairments would enable somebody to enter?

I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. That is really important because in another case from Oregon, Joan Lucas, who had ALS, was approved for this service; her children filled out the form. There was no question about it; they just took it and she was approved, which is quite worrying.

I thought the debate on somebody dying by suicide was really interesting, and I am going to use “assisted dying” in this context. One of the reasons we are told we cannot use “dying by suicide” is because dying by suicide and this process are completely different. I am not really sure that we can have it both ways. We need to give a little more thought to that.

I get quite upset when we are constantly told that people are dying anyway. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but we have to find a better form of words. People may be dying, but the process and the experience they have as they go through that might vary considerably. Sometimes the language that we use in the Chamber can be quite dismissive of the amendments that we are trying to bring to make the Bill safer. We still never seem to hear the word “safe”, we just hear “workable” all the time.

My amendment in this group, Amendment 924, is about protecting older people and being able to make sure that any abuse or risk of coercion can be assessed. It is really about how the panels gather this information. It has already been mentioned that the British Association of Social Workers has said that the safeguarding is not enough. Hourglass has said that one in five of over-65s has experienced abuse, and on 15 June last year, which was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, there were calls from numerous organisations to do more. The British Psychological Society has said that elder abuse is a “hidden epidemic”, and the scope is huge: it can be physical, emotional, financial or sexual; there is also neglect and self-neglect.

While the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 gives a framework, challenges persist of social isolation, caregiver abuse, power dynamics and, again, financial abuse. The role of professionals and how they report back on this is really important. I absolutely understand what my noble friend Lady Hayman is saying about not making the system overly complicated, but we have to find a holistic way of supporting people.

SafeLives has said that older people experience abuse before seeking help for twice as long as those who are under 61. Last year Age UK reported the fact that older people are overlooked by policymakers, service providers and programmes that are designed to support victims and survivors. Until 2021, people over 75 were not even asked about their experience of domestic abuse, so the lack of data means that there is an assumption about who is being abused. The ONS introduced new survey questions, which render comparison nearly impossible. Of course, the perpetrator of the abuse could be an adult child. What we found out is that women are at higher risk from their partners and men are at higher risk from adult children. Many organisations have talked about the need for professional support, which is really important.

When I am sitting in the Chamber and we talk about people becoming older at the age of 61, I wonder what the average age of the House of Lords is. I believe it is still 71, and everyone is incredibly active, but this is not the real world—on so many levels, it is not.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

Sorry, I did not mean to be funny.

We are using old data or data that is incomplete. The data I found, which is from 2017-18, showed that 139,500 women and 74,300 men aged 60 to 74 experienced domestic abuse. Those are huge numbers. Hourglass estimates that 2.7 million older people experience abuse, and in Australia, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety said that 39.2% of older people experience neglect and emotional and physical abuse.

I am very sorry that my noble friend Lady Hollins is unable to be here today, because her experience of assessing patients—the thousands of patients she has worked with—would be quite important. We were told by the honourable Member for Spen Valley, Ms Leadbeater, that there would be detailed conversations, so not to worry. But I question what those detailed conversations will look like. My husband and I have very different views on what a detailed conversation is.

To cover the issue of panels briefly, I have no experience of such panels; the only experience of panels that I have is for Olympic and Paralympic selection, which is very different. But you are talking about someone’s life in sport, and potentially their career can be ended by a decision—although I am in no way conflating those two things. But in that process an athlete who has not been selected is able to appeal only the process and not the decision. That is a really important thing, because most athletes never understand what they are trying to appeal to get to go to a major Games. So it needs to be very clearly understood what that appeal process should look like.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for bringing to a head one of the critical issues in this legislation. As one of the diminishing number of people in this House who is not a lawyer, I say that we have to find our way through this labyrinthine structure where we have chambers and all sorts of things. Without legal experience, it is difficult even as a legislator to navigate through this.

The point I want to make at the outset is that this significant piece of legislation started off in the other place with the legal process as a fundamental part of the architecture. That was subsequently changed more than half way through its process in the other place, and now we are trying to re-inject it into the system. I would ask the sponsor and indeed the Minister to respond to this. There are so many issues that have been raised already this morning about the consequences of making this change, for which we have absolutely no information whatever.

I remind colleagues that, on our last Friday, there were five separate issues—I repeat, five—to which no response or answer was provided. They were: the issue between England and Wales, the issue between England and Scotland, the issue of pregnant women, the issue of homeless people, and the issue of prisoners. There is no clarity on any of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and his co-signatories are attempting in these amendments to at least make the legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, less unsafe. The stage we are at in this legislation is probably 75% or 80% of the way through the process and, as with a Meccano set, we are still bolting bits on and taking bits off.

All of this could have been avoided if we had had the proper process of a Royal Commission and a government Bill. This is Heath Robinson-type legislation on such a serious issue. I have to say to the sponsors that, instead of battling this out for the next few months, they would be far better to go to the Government and ask them to appoint a commission and get on with it. Then we would not have to fight our way through this morass.

Not being a legal person myself, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—given the pressures that we understand are applied to the courts and the Family Division—whether there is a case for the creation of a special chamber for people who are dedicated to this, with the training that would be required. Or, with the pressures that the family court is under, could it be that comparatively junior people end up being designated to hear these cases? Because you are talking about a huge gap in knowledge and experience on a life and death issue.

Maybe these questions cannot be answered now—maybe we will get answers when we come to Report—but the fact is that we are having to ask all these questions and we have no information, no numbers and nothing in front of us. I do not believe that that is a coherent and sensible way to go forward.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, made a very valid point about the general public’s confidence in who makes such decisions. While I can see the merits, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, of having a panel with different disciplines, the fact of the matter is that persons who are on that panel have to be appointed by somebody. Is there confidence in the people who appoint them? The court system, however, has a level of public confidence miles above any alternative.

All of these things need to be sorted out. They should have been sorted out before we had this debate today and they have not been. That is where we are. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is attempting to put a foundation under this legislation. Leaving issues of principle out of it for the moment—we are legislators and sometimes we have to do things that we do not want to do personally—we are obliged to undertake this process. I assume that he is trying to put a foundation underneath this legislation that would command confidence among the general public, or at least a higher level of confidence than, I suspect, the panel process has. The fact that we have had this change and this flip-flop is very concerning.

I conclude by asking the noble Lord, and indeed, necessarily, the Minister: if these amendments were to be accepted by the sponsor, what would be the Government’s response? The noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Gove, have raised this, as have others. I understand that Ministers are in a difficult position. They are technically dealing with a Private Member’s Bill, whatever some of us think about that. Without having knowledge of what the state is going to do, we are legislating for the state to intervene to allow a person to end their life, which is against other legislation that we have already passed. So it is important that the Government should let us know what their responses will be in these various scenarios and I do hope that, when we come to the wind-up of this debate, we will get some clarity.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 67 in my name, in which I have sought to bring back the role of the High Court judge. The complexity of this group of amendments is shown here, but I thought that it could be done with one amendment rather than the number of amendments that my noble friend Lord Carlile had to table.

I think that this debate shows many different things. Not least, we have heard quotes about how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has changed his mind over time. Others in the Chamber have done so as well, depending on the situation and the specific piece of legislation.

We need to give much more consideration to how this Bill will work in practice; this is one of the fundamental issues. I was disappointed when the High Court judge was removed from the process, because that had given me a level of reassurance. I felt that it gave authority and integrity to the process.

On where we are now, as other noble Lords have said, the toing and froing of this part of the Bill is very difficult. In another place, two-thirds of the debates on the Bill took place with the High Court judge as part of the process. If the noble and learned Lord was minded to bring that back in, it would yet again change a huge part of the Bill.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for meeting me before Christmas, when we had a very interesting discussion on one of the areas I am very concerned about, which is coercion, specifically coercion of disabled people. I am not minded to think that the panel is strong enough to cope with not just the number of cases that they may have to deal with but actually being able to spot some of the things that we have talked about. I have amendments on coercion; I also have amendments on the appointment process of those panel members, which I will not debate now. I know that the noble and learned Lord and I disagree on whether this is the safest Bill in the world. This is not the time for me to ask who has provided independent verification of that, apart from the Bill’s sponsors, but one thing we have to talk about is how we can make the Bill safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The noble Baroness used the phrase “moral pressure”. I mentioned in my speech that this is a fundamental change. If Clause 3 has gone, not by way of clause stand part, then actually, “pressure” has now gone from the test here. We now have “undue influence or coercion”, not “dishonesty, coercion and pressure”. Does she have any view—I mentioned domestic abuse victims—on whether that makes any change to the safety of the Bill for disabled people?

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

Oh, absolutely: I think pressure is something incredibly important that we have to assess. Certainly, from the huge number of disabled people I have spoken to, pressure comes in many different ways, and it is very difficult to detect. If we do not take that seriously, I think people will be coerced into thinking that this is their only option, rather than that they have a range of options. That is picked up in some of my other amendments, but I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.

We talked about the equality impact assessment. We need to look at the impacts on the Crown Court, on health and education committees and on children with SEND, and I think we probably need another version of the equality impact assessment to enable us to make the best decision on the way forward for the Bill. I am minded to support my noble friend Lord Carlile, because I think that what he proposes is much better than the panel currently in the Bill.

Mindful of time, I will leave my last comment to the Medical Defence Union, the leading indemnifiers of UK doctors, which gave evidence to the Commons Bill Committee:

“The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted”—


noble Lords should understand that this was the context when the evidence was given—

“No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care”.


This is one group we have not really heard a lot from, and we should be minded of its role in the system as well.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as sizeable as this group of amendments is, the key proposals embodied within it can be described in relatively brief terms. The Committee therefore owes its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for having given exactly that kind of helpful summary in his opening speech, which set our debate going on a good track. In thanking him for that, what has emerged most clearly to me in this debate is the far-reaching nature of the change to the architecture of the Bill represented by his proposals. In addition, were his proposals to be adopted in their totality, they would, as I read them, have the effect of simplifying very considerably the procedures required to bring about an assisted death.

In combination, those two consequences inevitably open up a range of questions, as we have heard, about how these proposals would work, not just in theory but most particularly in practice. We have, for example, heard questions about the capacity of the family court, about its funding and about the extent of the opportunity costs which the family court would need to sustain. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier gave us considerable reassurance on some of those issues, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, himself. However, the questions that have been asked are of fundamental significance and I think the Committee should hear from the Minister how the Government view the practical effect of the proposals and their workability.

On the principle of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we have heard some powerful points in their favour: for example, the established powers vested in the court; the analogous decisions which courts already have to make; the ability of the court to arrive at a reasoned judgment and to be a court of record; the fact that the court-based appeal system is well understood; and indeed the level of public confidence which the court already enjoys.

I would venture to add another, which is that the role for the court envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would be a substantive judicial role, in contrast to the role originally envisaged in the first iteration of the Bill. That came over to me, at least, as more of a tick-box exercise than an exercise of judicial judgment.

However, what I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are his views on the strand of this debate brought out most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Berridge and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: how he has assessed the merits of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in comparison to the proposals set out in the Bill. He is on record, some years ago, as having favoured a court-based approach in this area of the law. If his view is that, on balance, he now favours the panel process, as set out in the Bill, what considerations have led him to that conclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I do not understand that proposition. It seems to me that the panel is able to take that into account just as well as the court—and, indeed, I think the panel would probably be better able to assess it. I am not sure I accept that proposition.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, when this was debated in another place, that argument was made, and the Association for Palliative Medicine wrote formally to correct the record. In the statement, the APM clarified that the Bill does not align with the standard multiprofessional team decision-making process. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Dr Cox, who argued that the Bill’s model of two independent doctors working alone was inadequate, and that assessments should be carried out within the multiprofessional team model to strengthen the Bill. On that discrepancy, the APM and MPs noted that although the Bill introduces a panel of psychiatrists and social workers at the end of the process, that does not equate to multiprofessional assessment at the beginning—the assessment stage that Dr Cox was advocating for. That is really important. The Association for Palliative Medicine wrote formally to correct the record following the debate in the other place. If the noble and learned Lord does not want to respond to that point right now, I am very happy for him to write to me, but I think it is important for that to be on the record in this Chamber, as a by-product of what happened in another place.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The reason why I quoted Dr Cox of the Association for Palliative Medicine was that she specifically said that it is better to approach this issue through a multidisciplinary process rather than by placing it on the shoulders of the two doctors and the High Court judge. The panel approach reflects that approach. That is why I quoted it. I do not think I need to write to say that. It was part of the evidence that was saying, “Have not one pair of eyes to judge, but three pairs of eyes”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have five amendments in this group and I beg noble Lords’ indulgence—I will get through them as quickly as I possibly can. I have tabled Amendments 179, 182 and 185 and I am a signatory to Amendments 262 and 263. We have talked a lot about choice, and I believe that patients should have real choice, not partial choice, which is why I have tabled amendments that focus on specialist palliative care.

In another place, the Public Bill Committee accepted Amendment 108 in the name of Polly Billington requiring doctors to offer palliative care support, but this could almost be a case of, “This is what you could have won”. Without a guarantee of that support being made accessible, it does not offer patients the choice that they may be expecting. We have seen cases such as Canada, where they are told, “Yes, you can have this, but we’re not going to fund it”. If the Bill is to be the best in the world, we genuinely have to offer patients every choice that is available. On the previous group, we talked about cost. We were not able to cost this up, but if patients feel that they have no choice but to end their life, we are stripping choice away from them.

Amendments 179, 182 and 185 are in my name. The Bill does not require a medical practitioner to ensure the patient has access to specialist care for their consideration. During the conversations, I believe it is important that the patient is automatically referred to specialist care, ensuring that they have a real choice about the treatment that they may choose to have. It is very important that my Amendment 179 goes beyond what the Bill says, which is just offering to refer, and says they must be referred. Until you are in that situation where you have been given a terminal diagnosis, even if you have a family member who is going through it, it can be slightly different when it is you. How does a patient know about all the different treatment options unless they are given them in a way where they have the time to understand them?

Amendment 182 is about needs being assessed by an appropriate health or social care professional, and proposed new subsection (5A)(b) states that patients must

“be provided with palliative and end of life care in line with their assessed needs”.

We should not be doing this as a case of, “This is what you could have won”—I apologise, but I cannot think a better way of saying it—but we see that in other jurisdictions, such as Canada, you are told, “You can have it, but we’re not funding it”. That puts patients in a really difficult and impossible situation. Amendment 185 also refers to the specialist support that I think is important.

My Amendments 262 and 263 are amendments to Amendment 261 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. They would add the specialist part of it. I am struck by the number of people I have spoken to who say they have had access to palliative care, but when I have interrogated it, it turns out that they have had access to some medical support. It might be a district nurse, but it does not necessarily mean somebody who has had specialist training. That is incredibly important.

I have lost both my parents. I thought my mother had access to good palliative care, and this is a sense of guilt that I and others feel. It was only when my father was dying that I realised what that could and should look like. They died eight years apart in the same hospital. You would have expected a similar level of treatment and support, but it was very far from that. My father was involved. He had a multidisciplinary team. There was lots of information that we were given time to understand. He was given time to understand what the situation might be.

One of my concerns with the Bill, and why it is so important that the specialist element is there, is that when we were having discussions about my father, we were told he was approaching end of life. We were told that it was very serious, we could let him slip away and that was what we should encourage to happen. That is what he was encouraged to think about. This is why I have real concerns with many parts of the Bill. At that point in my father’s life, he had had his foot amputated. He was told that he would not have a normal life and that he would not be able to live in the same house. It was the house I grew up in, and it was vaguely adapted. He was told it would not be possible to get a wheelchair. If there was one thing I could do for my father, it would have been to get him a really good wheelchair.

This comes back to one real issue I have with the substance of the Bill: how it could be misused by families who are not caring, loving or kind, or by doctors under huge pressure who encourage people to consider ending their life. It is important that the full gamut of options is available, so that individuals can make genuinely open choices about how they choose to end their lives.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 219 and to reinforce all the powerful arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I am not a lawyer, but it seems bizarre that sex and gender have explicitly not been recognised in existing hate crime legislation. Crimes motivated by hostility to disability, transgender identity, race, religion and sexual orientation are all recognised, but not those motivated by sex and gender. Yet, in a report published in January this year by UN Women UK, 71% of the 1,000 women polled had experienced sexual harassment in a public place, rising to a staggering 97% of women under the age of 25.

This is made worse by the sad fact that there is widespread scepticism among women and girls about reporting violence and abuse to the police because they have no confidence that their claims will be acted on or even taken seriously. Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum, of course. Hostility towards women and girls creates a culture in which violence and abuse is tolerated and repeated. That culture has to be changed, so a reform to legislation, which this amendment proposes and which I hope the Government will support, must be accompanied by a transformation of attitudes within the police.

I believe that there are encouraging signs that this is happening, albeit slowly. I was fortunate to attend the briefing that has been mentioned on this amendment given by the former chief superintendent of police for Nottinghamshire, Sue Fish—a pioneer of this approach —and Stuart Henderson, North Yorkshire Police’s hate crime co-ordinator, who is currently delivering this policy. It was absolutely fascinating to learn how much of a difference can be made when the leadership of the force is committed to driving a policy forward. A number of other forces are doing the same, and I commend this approach to the Metropolitan police force as it struggles to respond to the tsunami of criticism on gender-based hate crimes.

Because not all police forces have signed up, there is no consistency of reporting or approach to these crimes. That is why the amendment is necessary: to ensure that every woman and girl right across the country can feel confident that the role of misogyny in what they experience on a daily basis will at last be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately. It is also necessary because it would require police forces to record instances of motivation by hostility to the victim’s sex or gender, enabling them to monitor much more effectively the incidence of these crimes and so address and prevent them. Evaluation of this approach in Nottinghamshire showed improved victim confidence to come forward and report crimes, and benefits to the local police in their efforts to combat these crimes. It is a great tribute to Sue Fish that she persisted in pursuing the need for this change, and to Nottinghamshire Police for embracing it as pioneers.

Finally, I am aware that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look at this, and it is due to report imminently. I hope the Government will not use that as an excuse to kick this into the long grass; even if the Law Commission reports soon, too many of its reports are ignored by the Government and not implemented. In replying today, I hope the Minister will acknowledge the urgency of this issue and commit to concrete measures, as set out in the amendment, to address it speedily.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool that I intend to be brief. I speak to Amendment 219A, to which my name is attached. Sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has pointed out, violence against women and girls is still a major issue in this country. I do not think a week goes by without us reading or hearing about some terrible act.

A few years ago, I, like many others, would have conflated the words “sex” and “gender”. We discuss the gender pay gap, where actually we probably mean a sex pay gap. It has become clear to me that, as language evolves, sex and gender mean very different things. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has outlined this amendment very clearly, but I also believe that adding “gender” is unnecessary, as it could add further confusion to an area of law in which existing terminology is inconsistent and at times contested. Just in the short debate we have had tonight, we have seen that there is plenty more to discuss on the definition. I think we all agree that the protection of all people is important, and we should promote dignity, but that should be done without confusion.

I believe that we should wait for the Law Commission report, which I hope will be published soon, because it is a significant piece of work which will help inform the debate further.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, time is against us, so I will be really brief. From all our debates so far, I am convinced that the issue of inconsistent policing is the one where I would put most of my money in terms of improving the situation. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, which looked at the way police forces dealt with violence to women and girls, was very persuasive about the hugely patchy approach of police forces.

As far as the Law Commission is concerned, anyone reading its work will see that it is complex and that it did not come to an easy conclusion when it gave a provisional view that it would be helpful to add to the categories in the way suggested. Most notably, it identified the risk that hate crime laws could prove unhelpful in certain contexts such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. It then went on to quote evidence from the Fawcett Society, which argues that all sexual and domestic abuse offences committed by men against women should be understood as inherently misogynistic. There is therefore a risk that sex-based hate crime might disrupt this understanding because it would require juries to seek express evidence of misogyny in these contexts, potentially causing some offences to be non-misogynistic where there is insufficient evidence of this.

I am not qualified to comment on the detail, but it is clear that this is a complex issue, as are the issues of sex and gender. Given that the Law Commission will report by the end of the year, the key thing we want to hear from the Minister is that the Government will take the report seriously and it will not join other Law Commission reports in the long grass.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I start by drawing your attention to my entry in the register of interests. I speak in today’s debate as an atheist, a disabled person and someone who has watched both her parents die.

I oppose this Bill because I am a disabled person. I will explain the three different ways I am treated, which gives me a unique perspective and comparison. The first is as a Paralympian: I represented my country with great pride and I am treated very well because of it. The second is as a parliamentarian, where people like or do not like me based on my opinion. That is very simple. But the third is far more complicated, and that is as a disabled person. It is where I experience most and significant discrimination.

We do not live in an equal society. This Chamber has spent considerable time looking at coercive control. Why do we accept that in domestic abuse legislation but assume that in this legislation it would never happen?

We have to look at the wider context of life for many disabled people in this country. I cannot get on many forms of public transport without the approval of a non-disabled person. Airlines ask me to fill in forms that ask whether my impairment is offensive to others. Based on that form, they decide whether I am allowed to fly. In recent times, we have challenged airlines that tell me I am not allowed to fly my own because I am not a responsible adult. We have an unemployment gap. Care packages are being cut. During the pandemic, “do not attempt resuscitation” orders were put on hundreds—that we know about—of disabled people with no underlying health conditions. The Government have a strategy that recognises this inequality.

People have asked me why disabled people are not protesting outside in greater numbers. First, it is hard to get to London on public transport, but the other point is very simple: because of the pandemic. Those who are noting little opposition outside simply do not understand the risks some disabled people have to take every single day of their lives just to live. There are many organisations around disability, but there are 12 run by disabled people, andhey do not support this legislation. They are concerned about the potential backlash of it, and organisations run by disabled people really struggle to get any funding whatever.

As a disabled person, I have been told that people like me should not be allowed to have children. When people list the things that they could not bear to live with, such as incontinence, it upsets me, because what does that say about me? I am incontinent. Does that mean that my life has less value? I certainly do not feel any loss of dignity when I catheterise myself or have to use suppositories. This is something that can be very easily managed.

Many people have also said to me, “If my life was like yours, I would kill myself.” I have a huge amount of privilege in my life, but if people think this, it becomes very easy for them to conflate disability and a six-month diagnosis, and decide that we have no right to live. Serious consideration and sense check must be given to conscious and unconscious bias before the Bill can proceed.

It is not a simple Bill. Cambridge University Press has shown research on the impact on doctors of legalising assisted dying, and in 2019, the Royal College of Physicians noted that 24.6% of doctors were willing to do it, but only 5% of palliative care physicians. If we look at other jurisdictions, Belgium and the Netherlands, it is simply not right to say that where the legislation exists there is good palliative care. There has been no growth in palliative care in those two countries since 2012. In Canada, only 15% of people can access publicly funded palliative care at home.

We have heard a lot today that there is great public support for the Bill—around 80%—but that drops considerably when its details are better understood. Some 57% do not know what “assisted dying” means and 10% of those who believe that the law should change believe it actually means better hospice care. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to have assisted dying on the NHS when there is no right to palliative care. We must improve that. This is not a modest Bill and I do not support it.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 46, I will speak also to my Amendment 47 and to Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which my amendments are attached and which I strongly support.

My amendments bring controlling or coercive behaviour within the scope of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Amendment 46 mirrors Amendment 4, which was considered and overwhelmingly agreed to by the House on Monday.

I had intended to divide the House on Amendment 46 if the Minister could not accept it. I will not do so for one reason, and one reason alone. Just this morning, I learned that it could jeopardise Amendment 45, which is supported by the Government. I have no wish to risk another important amendment and potentially lose both it and my amendment. I have great admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and support her amendment overwhelmingly. Noble Lords will undoubtedly understand my reasons. I had not expected that kind of unwelcome surprise today.

Controlling or coercive behaviour, which is part of the definition of domestic abuse under Clause 1 of the Bill, is an offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. Such behaviour is unfortunately a common form of abuse by carers. Amendment 45 amends the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 to align it with Clause 2. The importance of including disabled people applies equally to the offence under Section 76. I set this out extensively on Monday and will not rehearse those arguments. It is worth noting that the draft guidance on Clause 2 relies on the guidance on Section 76 to explain controlling or coercive behaviour. They are complementary.

The two sets of provisions are totally interrelated. These amendments would ensure they remain consistent and ensure the coherence of the statutory abuse regime. It is very disappointing to not be able to follow that through for the protection and safety of disabled people if these amendments do not go through today. I await the response of the Minister in the sincere hope that she will accept these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 46 and 47, which are in the name of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton and to which my name is also added. Because Amendments 46 and 47 are an amendment to 45—and I do not wish to quote sections of the Companion to the Standing Orders to your Lordships’ House—I would like to make clear that those listed as signatories have been put in the unenviable position of making the heartbreaking decision of whether to divide the House and risk preventing the valuable amendment put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, from being passed.

In speaking after my noble friend, I do not wish to reiterate what has already been well articulated. I would like to thank the staff of your Lordships’ House, the disabled peoples’ organisations and many disabled women for the considerable amount of work they have put into this Bill. If there is one thing I ask of the Minister and the Bill team, it is that, when legislation that has such an impact on disabled people is being considered, disabled peoples’ organisations are expressly and extensively consulted. The added issues disabled people face should always be included.

On Monday it felt that, while we might not have convinced Her Majesty’s Government of the need to include disabled people in this Bill, the Chamber strongly supported my noble friend’s amendments. I would like to thank the 318 Peers who voted to support and include disabled people this week. I am expecting that there will be much support as we debate this group, but there will be push-back from Her Majesty’s Government.

Having re-read Hansard several times this week, I fear that we still have to convince Her Majesty’s Government of the need to protect disabled people. It is important and welcome that controlling or coercive behaviour is more widely understood across society, but that same protection does not appear to be afforded to disabled people. For that, I am extremely disappointed.

I wholly, but with a sad heart, support my noble friend’s decision tonight. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, my noble friend has been put in the unenviable position of having to explain to disabled people who experience abuse in a domestic setting—whom she has spent a considerable part of her working life supporting and protecting—that the politics and procedures we are operating under have excluded their place in the Bill.

I know from extensive discussions with those involved in these amendments that, in accepting and supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I absolutely do, if the House were divided we might put Amendment 45 at risk. There is always a price to pay by some in bringing legislation. Tonight, and in this instance, the price is being heavily paid by disabled people.

[Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45, but I do want to reference the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson. Their words have been very powerful, and we should never forget about the rights of disabled people. We should always try and give them a voice and make sure they are heard, because they are not heard enough in my view.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and I am pleased to stand in support of Amendment 162, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. It aims to close the criminal loophole that the ease of smartphones and modern technology has afforded perpetrators of domestic violence.

In her introduction to the amendment, my noble friend Lady Morgan set out the sheer scale of how simple threats to share sexual images or videos without consent are being used as a tool of coercive control and domestic abuse with devastating effect. Sadly, this seems to be a growing problem. The time is late, and I do not propose to repeat the statistic that we have already heard: that 4.4 million people are affected. The impact of these threats from current or ex-partners has huge negative results on mental and emotional well-being, creating enormous fear and anxiety, and, sadly, they are very effective. Four out of five women surveyed changed the way they behaved as a result of threats. They feel ashamed, anxious, isolated, frightened and even suicidal.

On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged these concerns and highlighted that the Law Commission has launched a review of the law relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images, including, but not limited to, the revenge porn offence in Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. However, as she has already said, waiting for the results of the review may take a long time, because once it is concluded it can take up to six months for the Government to provide an interim response to the findings and a full year before a final formal response. While the Government often accept Law Commission findings, as your Lordships well know, they are then subject to the Government finding a suitable piece of legislation and parliamentary time to make the legal changes enabling a recommendation to come into force. As has already been mentioned, it could be years, so why wait when this Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the change today? We do not need a review to tell us that this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, as do our concerns about the effectiveness of the law as it stands. I ask the Minister: why not accept this amendment, even if it is not perfect? This change, which we can make now, will provide victims with the support they need to fight back against such abusive, despicable behaviour as revenge porn and give the police the power they require to be able to act.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interest, in that I am a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others who have put their name to this amendment have comprehensively covered it and I commend them all on their ongoing commitment in this area. It is a privilege to add my name to this amendment. I also thank Refuge for providing an overwhelming picture of the scale and impact of this threat. The data and figures are compelling.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, may we have the privilege of listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson?

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

Thank you, my Lords. I have two very small amendments in this group, Amendments 161 and 167, which refer to the Suicide Act 1961 (Amendment) Act 2015. They merely serve to strengthen the declaration in relation to commensurate capacity.

On the main subject of this grouping, if I supported the Bill I would use the word dying because it suggests compassion, caring and a peaceful death. If suicide was associated with the Bill it would perhaps trigger some suicide prevention measures, which would increase the safety of the Bill and give comfort to a number of people. If the final action is to be taken by the individual, not by the doctor, surely that is suicide. I offer a challenge to your Lordships’ House on terminology. For years, disabled people were called not normal— they still are. They were called deformed, spastic, cripples and handicapped. There are also nasty words around race and culture. That is not a reason not to change and move on, or not to improve the language that we use. If we are honest about what the Bill is and if we are talking about autonomy, the word to use is suicide.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am well aware that the Committee wishes to move on, so I appeal to its forbearance to allow me to make a couple of remarks. It is 10 years and two days since I lodged formally my proposal in the Scottish Parliament, a precursor to Margo MacDonald’s Bill. My proposal was the Right to Die for the Terminally Ill Bill, and I was well aware at that point of the criticisms of those who opposed it: that I was using emotionally charged language or euphemism, or softer language than it necessarily should be. The context in the proposal referred to physician-assisted suicide. Over the 10 years I have had an interest in this, having lodged a proposal in a legislature with a distinctly different background from the legislation on suicide in England and Wales, I have come to the conclusion that the terminology and definition in this Bill is absolutely correct.

Over the last 10 years, I have been struck that those people who would wish to use the protections under such a Bill—I believe that they are protections—are the least suicidal people you could find. They are people who love life and strive to live as long as they possibly can, but their life is being robbed from them because of a terminal illness. They come to the conclusion that they wish to have control in their remaining days, whereas control is being removed from them. I agree absolutely that language and terminology are important, and that truthfulness is vital. I am slightly upset when it is alleged that some of us who are on a different side in this debate are less truthful than others. Second Reading was a profoundly important moment, when we respected each side in the debate. Having used the different terms myself, over those 10 years I have come to these conclusions.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the later one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, go some way to off-setting this very pessimistic Bill. The proponents of the Bill have always argued that their intention is for it to apply to only a very small number of people. That intention will be far better realised if prognosis is set with a much smaller time limit of weeks or, okay, maybe months, but not six months. I urge your Lordships to support this amendment and others of its kind.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I wish to raise two brief points. The first is on the rate of diagnostic error, which has already been mentioned. The Royal College of Pathologists gave evidence to the Select Committee looking at the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which heard that diagnostic errors are common. The report says:

“The Royal College of Pathologists drew attention to ‘a 30% error rate in the medically-certified cause of death’, with ‘significant errors (i.e. misdiagnosis of a terminal illness resulting in inappropriate treatment) in about 5% of cases’”.

Secondly, I wish to raise a point of clarification with my noble friend Lady Meacher. She does not appear to be in her place, but it is a question that applies probably equally to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. My noble friend talked about autonomy at the point that somebody chooses the right to end their own life. To me, that suggests that the drugs or medication would be in the person’s possession and in their home, as it is in Oregon. I should like some clarification on whether the Bill is suggesting that the person would have the drugs available to them in their home. For me, it is important to understand the timeline of how the decision-making process will take place and whether there would be a tiered approach. An awful lot of people who write to me assume that, if the Bill becomes law and they are able to choose the time that they end their life, it will be in their own home and with their friends and family around them, not in a medical facility, and that they will not have to go through a huge series of hoops in those final moments. It is really important for me to understand whether these drugs that will kill people will be in a person’s possession in their home.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has spoken movingly from her own experience and, indeed, her expertise. I am sure I am not alone in respecting her greatly for that and for ensuring that this House hears the views of people in the disabled community who are worried that this is a thin end of a wedge.

I suffer from a life-limiting illness. In most cases, it is not terminal but it is degenerative if it is not got under control. To answer one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, I, too, have the risk of catching a very serious infection because my immune system is compromised by the medication I am on. I would not expect anything short-term such as that to be considered by my medical practitioners—or even by myself, as happened to me at Christmas—as being part of the longer-term degeneration of a terminal condition. It would be worrying if we believed that the Bill was giving that thought some traction. The timescale for approval reflection within the Bill means that in the case of a temporary or short-term illness, any medical practitioner would be likely to advise someone that they should not be making a decision at that time because it would not necessarily mean that the rapid progress of the disease itself was an issue.

I want to make some very specific points on some of the amendments in this group. First, I am concerned about the impracticality of Amendment 13. Often when someone discovers that they are in the terminal stages of an illness, they will move to be with family; they are therefore likely to move GP. My mother, who died just before Christmas, had three GPs in the last stage of her life. She was at home. She then moved into a nursing home. She then had to move to another nursing home for more supportive care. She might have had four GPs had she moved to a hospice. Should Amendment 13 go through, I am concerned that that would have ruled her out from being able to make a decision, should she have desired it. I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in raising this, but the practicalities for many at the end of their lives mean that I think it is unworkable.

On Amendment 20, I hear everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says but my counter to that is that a patient will listen to advice and a doctor will give them a wide range of advice on the likely progression of their disease and, indeed, any comorbidities. This is also moving into the area of Amendment 21. The evidence of where assisted dying happens, particularly in America, is that the time between somebody starting to get the initial advice and going through the process and, having concluded that, then deciding that the time is right to take their life is the exact reason why we need six months and not six weeks. A patient should reflect and make sure that what they are doing is right for them and at the right time. Often people who support the principle of assisted dying are worried about those last few weeks and want to have the safety net of the decision having been made by the professionals in their back pocket, so to speak, so that should their life become intolerable they do not have to start the process at that point. That is why either three months or six weeks will mean that a patient will not get the timescale they need to consider appropriately with their family, friends and medical practitioner whether this is the right thing for them.

I am perplexed by Amendments 22 and 45, which imply that treatment that delays the progression of a terminal condition would be considered an available treatment for a dying person and would therefore exclude them from having an assisted death if they rejected such a treatment. If I have read this right, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is arguing that it changes the fundamental right of a patient to refuse treatment because that treatment might increase the length of their life, even if the quality of that life were to be intolerable. For example, one reason that many people say that they would like assisted dying is that they do not want to go through another round of chemotherapy on a new drug, perhaps for the fourth or fifth time, and live with the very difficult consequences of that treatment. That is exactly what the Bill is about: patients coming to an informed decision about when they wish to end their life, even if another treatment is available, when medical practitioners have said that their condition is terminal.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is proposing is simply not fit for purpose. However, this debate is an important one. It is too simplistic to suggest that this is simply a debate about compassion versus suffering. Making law is not a popularity contest, and we should not pass legislation based on emotion; it is about protecting the whole of society, not just the strong-willed and self-confident. The Supreme Court urged your Lordships’ Chamber to consider whether the law should be changed; it did not say that the current law does not work.

This Bill proposes a fundamental change in the relationship between doctors, patients and families. We have to recognise that not everyone’s motives are altruistic; not everyone has a caring family. People can be coerced. We do not live in a halcyon world where choice generally exists for everyone. Our position here in your Lordships’ Chamber gives us an extraordinary ability to make choices over every single aspect of our lives. We are privileged; we should not assume that everyone is in the same position as us. It is difficult to measure whether choice is being freely given or not. Will two doctors really have time accurately to assess this? For many people, life is something that happens to them or even passes them by. They have no choice—and, soon, they could have less.

The Bill suggests that people could be offered other alternatives—but what if you live in the wrong postcode or no alternative is available? Then there appears to be only one choice. In essence, it would be licensing assisted suicide within the National Health Service. The Bill does not contain safeguards; it has initial criteria, and no detail how those will operate. The Secretary of State may, if he wishes, issue a code of practice.

Some in favour of this Bill are expecting a Hollywood death, where you slip away, versus what is otherwise portrayed as a bad death. People need to know the practicalities of what this change in law could bring. Will it be at the exact time of their choosing? Will it be at home, or with family close by, or are there going to be a number of Dignitas-style facilities around the country? Peter from Redcar wrote to me and said that he believed it was the first step to euthanasia, especially as it coincides with current economic times.

We continually hear that this Bill is based on Oregon, not on Holland or Belgium, and we have been told that it is a modest Bill for a handful of people. Oregon is smaller than Yorkshire. Of course, the numbers are small, but there is a rising trend, and no audit is carried out about how requests for assisted suicide are handled. In 2012, the population of Oregon was 3 million, compared to 56 million in England and Wales—so we could be looking at 1,600 people per annum. This is not a modest number. I was very interested to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on Radio 4 this morning, and I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—

[Noble Lords]

There he is!

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

Apologies—the noble and learned Lord is not in the place where he was sitting earlier. I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord said. He must stop being reluctant to discuss the precise figures. People need to know how many people this may affect.

Professor Theo Boer, a regulator of Dutch law, said that recent developments and extensions were not intended by the legislators who drafted the original law. We should listen to him.

Why are people worried? It is because many disabled people are not terminally ill. However, many terminally ill people experience some sort of impairment and there is a great deal of confusion around that. There is a myth that our lives are so tragic or painful that we must want to end them. Just this week I was told, “You must have wanted to kill yourself many times in your life”. No, I have not. I have experienced excruciating pain. When I was 19, I snapped a metal rod off my spine that came out through my skin, but I have never considered killing myself. The fact is, however, that many people expected that I would ask for that. What if those people were related to me?

Becky got in touch with me this morning and said that a doctor very recently told her—I quote verbatim—“You cost the NHS too much money. It would be better off if you were dead”. A mum wrote to me to tell me about her son who, at a low point in his life, expressed a desire not to carry on. She checked the criteria in the Bill and found that he would qualify. He is not terminally ill, as we think about it—he has severely complicated diabetes.

Some of the cases highlighted in the media concern people who are not terminally ill and would supposedly not fit the terms of the Bill. However, this raises concerns that this is just the tip of the iceberg or an attempt to soften public opinion. The charity Care has shown that those who support the Bill in principle change their mind when they are presented with the reality of assisted suicide. Then the percentage of those who support it drops from 73% to 43%.

Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, wrote in his own inquiry, when referring to whether this provision was for disabled people:

“not at this moment in time”.

This is why I and many others are deeply worried.

Assisted Suicide

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, the policy we are debating was subjected to a serious public consultation before being finalised. The CPS website states that nearly 5,000 responses were received and the draft policy was modified.

The early policy listed,

“a terminal illness; a severe and incurable physical disability; or a severe degenerative physical condition from which there was no possibility of recovery”,

as a mitigating factor. I am so relieved that this was removed. This was done because it was considered that it could have the unintended effect of discriminating against people who are seriously ill or disabled by implying that assisting their suicide was of less concern than assisting the suicides of other people, as my noble friend Lady Campbell said. Disabled people face this discrimination every single day of our lives. As a disabled campaigner, I know that we have fought paternalism.

I refer to this change to the draft policy because it illustrates a wider issue. Those who want a change to the law are anxious to reassure us that their demands are limited to people who are terminally ill and that others such as the chronically ill or disabled people should not feel at risk. This argument does not hold up, as Belgium has shown us. It is the designation of one group that causes concern.

The law we have applies equally to all of us, irrespective of age, gender, race or health. The law that we have rests, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has written, on a natural and easily recognisable frontier—the principle that we do not involve ourselves in bringing about the deaths of other people. Once we start redrawing the law arbitrarily around particular groups it becomes just a line in the sand. If it can apply to terminally ill people, why not chronically ill people? If chronically ill people, why not disabled people? Such a law is inherently unstable.

The need for equality of access and equality of protection was clearly recognised by the DPP when the policy was drawn up. We should recognise it if we should be asked, yet again, to consider legalising assisted suicide.