Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I am finishing with this quotation, and it is just a couple of sentences:

“We also know that when you acquire disability, which most people do … it is absolutely frightening … If doctors are not on our side because they are thinking, ‘Should we mention the fact that they could have an assisted death?’, that poses a big cultural issue for the NHS, but also for us having confidence in the NHS”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the probing Amendment 161 in my name. It asks the simple but profoundly important question of whether registered medical practitioners should be granted a blanket legal protection to raise the possibility of ending any person’s life or whether that protection should be carefully and responsibly limited to patients already in their care.

At the heart of this debate lies the issue of safety and trust. The relationship between a patient and their doctor is not a casual exchange. I hope it is a deeply personal, often vulnerable, bond built on confidence, continuity and professional responsibility. When someone receives a terminal diagnosis, they are not merely confronting medical facts; they are confronting fear, uncertainty and the fragility of their remaining time. In that moment, words matter immensely. To grant blanket legal protection to any registered medical practitioner, regardless of whether they have an established clinical relationship with the individual, risks undermining that trust. It risks introducing the possibility that a suggestion about ending life could come from a professional who does not know the patient’s history, values, mental state, family circumstances or vulnerabilities.

Amendment 161 does not seek to obstruct lawful medical practice or to deny terminally ill adults the autonomy that the Bill intends to provide. Rather, it seeks to ensure that conversations about assisted dying occur in the right context, within a relationship in which the doctor knows the patient, understands their condition and is responsible for their ongoing care.

We must consider the subtle power imbalance inherent in clinical settings. A doctor’s words carry authority. Look at the effect they have on the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, at times. For a patient who is elderly, disabled, isolated or feeling like a burden, even a carefully phrased suggestion can carry unintended weight. If such a conversation is initiated by a practitioner with no established duty of care, we risk normalising a culture in which ending life becomes a broadly available option rather than a carefully safeguarded patient-led request.

Limiting legal protection to practitioners involved in a patient’s care and case strengthens safeguards. It ensures that any discussion arises from clinical knowledge, not abstract eligibility; it reinforces accountability; it reduces the risk of inappropriate suggestion; and it protects vulnerable people feeling steered towards a decision at a moment of profound weakness.

Autonomy is meaningful only when it is protected from subtle coercion, even unintentional coercion. By supporting Amendment 161, we are not diminishing choice: we are strengthening the ethical framework in which that choice is exercised. In matters of life and death, precision, boundaries and safeguards matter. Amendment 161 offers a proportionate, reasonable and ethically sound safeguard. It preserves trust in the medical profession, protects vulnerable patients and ensures that, if such conversations occur, they do so within the context of established clinical responsibility. For those reasons, I urge the Committee seriously to consider the intent and spirit behind Amendment 161.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that my mother held doctors in great esteem and reverence until the day that I and my rowdy friends qualified, and then the whole mystique was exploded overnight.

My serious point is that I am still mystified by Clause 5, because it remains completely unclear who is having this preliminary discussion. Even if we safeguard against the doctor raising the subject of assisted dying without it being initiated by the patient, none the less this clause is still opaque about who this person is. If, fortuitously, the patient has a good relationship with their GP and is able to raise the matter and have a full discussion, they may be able to cover all the things that are listed in this clause—diagnosis, prognosis, palliative care, hospice, available treatments and so on—but, if it is not their GP, who is the medical practitioner supposed to direct them to? Unlike the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor, they do not have the right written into the Bill to access the patient’s records or make inquiries of the person who is looking after them, so I am unclear about how they are supposed to discharge all these duties.

Also, it does not reflect reality. If somebody is starting to think about possibly seeking an assisted death, they may ask their GP about one part, their priest about another aspect, their next of kin about another aspect, and they will gradually form a view. But to lay it down in statute seems to be putting an additional hurdle in the patient’s way. Surely, at the time when they want to ask about the detail of assisted death, what it might entail and its feasibility, the person to seek advice from is the co-ordinating doctor or the first doctor within the voluntary assisted dying service, who will have had the training and will have some knowledge to be able to say with confidence what the individual should expect. So I strongly support my noble friend Lady Hollins’s view that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill, because it seems to be a complete muddle that we have been discussing various aspects of for some time now.

Rape: Prosecutions

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate. It addresses a matter of profound urgency and importance, and one that speaks directly to justice, safety and equality in our society. The stark reality remains that too many victims of rape and sexual assault in the UK are being denied justice.

The figures are sobering. Although thousands of rape cases are reported every year, only a small fraction result in charges being brought. In the 12 months to July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued 496 rape cases. The proportion of rape prosecutions being dropped has also risen in recent years—up from 9.3% in 2022 to 12.8% at the end of last year. Low prosecution rates erode trust, silence survivors and result in crimes going unpunished. It is essential that we confront this issue with both urgency and compassion—a point made by all noble Lords who have contributed thus far.

Crippling court delays are thought to be a major contributing factor in why victims choose to abandon the process before a trial takes place. Victims face resource constraints in policing. In the Crown Prosecution Service, concerns have emerged that the changes to the rules about how digital evidence is handled have the potential to have adverse impacts on victims seeking justice. However, this has been disputed by representatives from Rape Crisis, who have said that the protections afforded to victims regarding digital evidence were vital in keeping them engaged—a point already raised in this debate.

Others have expressed concerns that although rape convictions have doubled over five years, the number of prosecutions that have been dropped has tripled. The importance of resource to deal with rape cases has been made very well today, and I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The previous Government took steps to support victims, ensure justice is delivered and restore public confidence in the system. First, we made record investments in victim support services, providing survivors with more resources. We increased funding for rape crisis centres and nearly doubled the number of independent sexual violence advisers.

Secondly, under Conservative leadership, an action plan for improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape in England and Wales was published, and reports have been published every year since then to update Parliament and the public on the progress made in implementing recommendations in the action plans. It would be good to have an update on this.

Finally, we legislated to end the automatic halfway release for offenders sentenced for crimes such as rape, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm.

As a result of the implementation of these measures, progress was made in the prosecution of rape cases. Data from July to September 2023 showed that adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS continued to increase: there were 1,470 police referrals in this period. In fact, we increased rape prosecutions by 56% since 2010 and pledged that rape victims would get the justice and support they deserve, with a new investigatory model for police forces and prosecutors, as well as pre-recorded cross examination for victims in all Crown Courts.

However, this is not enough, and we can all agree that we must go further. At present, adult rape cases take an average of two years to complete in court. I am sure everybody in this debate agrees that this is not good enough. It can leave survivors feeling as if they are in limbo, and lead to their withdrawing from the process before the cases reach trial. Statistics have been given today as evidence of this.

In their manifesto, the Government promised to appoint legal advocates to provide free legal services and support to rape survivors across England and Wales by redirecting PCC grants for victims’ services. Yet it is deeply concerning that, to date, progress has been slow. They appear to have stalled on their promise to set up dozens of specialist rape courts to deal with the court backlogs. Can the Minister confirm that they will continue to build on the efforts made by the previous Government? What attempts have the Government made to use vacant rooms and buildings on Crown Court sites to fast-track rape cases, as pledged during the election campaign? Will the Minister confirm that fast-track rape cases are indeed a priority for the Government in their commitment to tackle violence against women and girls?

I would also like to support, at this stage, the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to education. It would be good if the Minister was able, either today or in writing, to tell us of any progress that has been made in this.

My noble friend Lady Wyld ended her excellent contribution by saying that there is cross-party support for this. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the point that we are here to help. I think this is something we can work on together, not fall out over, and make life better for the people who suffer.

Office for Students

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willetts on securing this debate. His two brains have been working on overtime. I add my Benches’ congratulations to the Minister on her engagement. It is good to see her so happy.

I speak in this debate on the recent report published by the Office for Students that identifies three key priority areas for the next five years: quality assurance, wider student interest and sector resilience. The Office for Students is focusing its efforts on monitoring financial sustainability to help create a secure future for our world-leading universities. This is in response to growing concerns about declining student recruitment, increasing operational costs and wider economic uncertainty. I want to explore the significant changes proposed by the Office for Students in its strategy for 2025-30, particularly its decision to close the register for new higher education providers and pause granting degree-awarding powers until August 2025. While these changes are framed as necessary to strengthen the financial sustainability of higher education, they also raise important questions about their impact on innovation, access and diversity in the sector.

The Office for Students has decided to pause new entries in the register of higher education providers and temporarily halt the granting of degree-awarding powers. This decision is in direct response to the severe financial pressures facing many universities, particularly small, medium and specialist providers. New analysis suggests that up to 72% of higher education providers could be in financial deficit by the 2025-26 academic year, prompting the Office for Students to focus its resources on stabilising existing institutions rather than admitting new ones.

I confess today that, unlike others in this Committee, I was not educated in a university. Instead, I attended the Salvation Army’s William Booth College, an international college at Denmark Hill. It is a great building, and I congratulate the Salvation Army on not selling it to some big developer to develop “Denmark Hill Village” but investing heavily in the college and its educational achievements.

William Booth started the Salvation Army—I have time, I will do it—in 1865 as he was absolutely distraught at the poor educational attainment of the people, particularly in the East End, and their attraction to alcohol. They could not work because they could not keep their feet on the floor all the time. The first thing he did was get them off alcohol, off the grog, as he called it. The second thing was to find them a job. He persuaded somebody to buy a farm near Epping Forest, and people went to live there with their families, they were educated, they worked on the farm, and they got a life together. He even went as far as to buy land in Australia, and people, if they really did well, were able to have that land as a gift and develop their own business. He really was a social entrepreneur very early on in the whole setup. The college educates Salvation Army cadets, as they are called—officers—and it has now been an international college for some time. People come from all over the world to train there, and the impact that the Salvation Army has on people’s lives can never be underestimated. I guess that it also has great plans for the place. If noble Lords want to visit, I am happy to fix that up. It would be a travesty if something such as that that is managed well, has good people and does not have government money were not allowed to start today. Let us bear that in mind.

Can the Minister explain how the Office for Students intends to balance the need for financial stability with the need for ongoing innovation in higher education, particularly in industries such as health, engineering and the creative arts, given that smaller specialist providers often cater for niche demands? Does the Office for Students risk limiting innovation and diversity of provision by closing the register to new providers? Will doing so have an impact on the economy growing? Furthermore, we must acknowledge the broader context of this financial instability, which is the growing student recruitment crisis in the face of declining recruitment numbers and rising operational costs. British universities are grappling with the challenge of attracting students. How does the Minister plan to address the issue of declining student recruitment, particularly considering the financial pressures many universities face? While stabilising the sector is necessary, what is being done to ensure that institutions are still able to offer the courses and opportunities that will meet future demand in student and workforce markets and in wider society?

In conclusion, while the Office for Students’ strategy is designed to safeguard the financial sustainability of the sector and prevent further closures or disruptions, we must remain vigilant about the potential longer-term consequences. As we move forward, it is crucial that the Office for Students balances its financial oversight with a commitment to innovation, student access and diversity. The sector needs to be able to adapt to changing demands, and a robust plan to tackle the student recruitment crisis must be a central part of that strategy.

Prison Maintenance: Insourcing

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I have a wide brief, but it does not include the prisons in Scotland. So far as female offenders are concerned, the issue is the same. This week, I was proud to chair the first Women’s Justice Board, and we will be tackling many of these issues. I have visited a number of women’s prisons over the years, and last week I visited Willowdene, which is a rehabilitative centre just outside Birmingham where women go as an alternative to custody. It is clear that many of those women are very ill and need help.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in HM Prison Liverpool, in Walton—as a visitor—and seen first hand the work superb that the Minister refers to. His family deserve credit for all they have done. My experience of contracting, which is not as great as that of some in this House, is that the whole thing falls apart if the tender spec and terms of the contract are not clear. Any Government must be careful about picking the right price but the wrong provider—cheap is not always the best thing. Can the Minister give us an indication or a commitment that he will get the best person for the job, not the cheapest?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments; it is nice that we have known each other for many years and discussed this topic. I like to think that I bring to this job my skills as a business leader, where commercial decisions are not always about price but about service as well.