Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Gold Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, when I spoke at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill in 2021, I expressed grave concern about the “hidden persuasion” being used by family members, encouraging loved ones to take their own lives. This means that by words or conduct a patient is made to feel guilty that they continue to live, that they are a burden and expense on the family and that it would be better for everyone if they were no more. This new Bill fails effectively to address this issue. Yes, it outlaws coercion, but it does not deal at all with the issue of hidden persuasion.

In the earlier Bill, a High Court judge was required to confirm the patient’s eligibility for assisted dying. Those involved could be questioned and the process tested. The role of the judge is now to be taken by a panel comprising a “legal member”, a psychiatrist and a social worker, but the lawyer’s view could be ignored, as decisions are by majority vote. Removing proper judicial scrutiny is a most worrying development. There is no requirement in the Bill that the patient must be known to the two doctors who are required to be involved, and the patient will certainly not be known to the panel, so determining capacity and intention will be extremely difficult.

Inevitably, the patient will be in a vulnerable state. They may be distressed that their family is inconvenienced by having to visit, sometimes coming from afar. For those in a care home, there may be a concern about the substantial cost being incurred, eating into future inheritances. Nobody outside the visiting family will know what pressure has been put on patients. How can we ever be sure that there has not been abuse?

Further, the Bill expressly provides, in Clause 38, that a death by self-administration does not constitute an “unnatural death”, so there will be no inquest unless a senior coroner has reason to suspect that the deceased died an unnatural death. No guidance is offered as to what might persuade the coroner to undertake such an investigation.

I have a further major concern about the Bill: far from ending the debate about assisted dying, it is the beginning of a far bigger debate, as touched on by some noble Lords today. The replacement of judicial scrutiny by the proposed panel is a warning that safeguards risk being abandoned. We should have no doubt: if the Bill becomes law, this is the slippery slope to further change, with calls for us to introduce euthanasia, which has been the experience of other countries. Euthanasia is now accepted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and the state of Oregon. In some places, patients have been euthanised for psychiatric conditions, including depression.

Indeed, the Netherlands has proposed extending the law to elderly people with completed lives. There is already pressure to extend this Bill, with some suggesting that doctors should be able to administer the drug, not simply assist, when the patient is too ill to take it themselves. Is this what we want? I certainly do not.

This Bill outlines a complicated process before a patient will be permitted to receive assistance in dying. The Bill is silent as to how this is to be done. I am concerned that none of this has been sufficiently thought through. I do not believe our present medical staff can cope with assisted death in addition to the very valuable work they now do, so something different is needed. The NHS is finding it hard enough coping with the patients who want to live, let alone those who want to die.

One possibility is that Ministers might create mobile assisted death units, making the option of choosing death far easier for vulnerable patients to accept because all the problems of the process will be managed by professionals who know the system, know what is required, provide the two doctors needed, liaise with the panel and assist patients with all the administration and form filling. Frankly, this risks a further means of subtle coercion.

I have only touched on some of the concerns I have about this Bill. It is a thoroughly bad measure and should be rejected. Nobody wants patients to suffer a painful death, but assisting an early death is not the answer. If this measure is approved and the Government have to make it work, the costs and administration involved will be colossal. It would be far better spending this money and putting our efforts into improving the palliative care we offer.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Gold Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his position. I wish him much success and joy as our Minister here. Understandably, there is considerable support across the political spectrum for the Government’s campaign to tighten up measures tackling economic crime. The Bill is far-reaching: much of what it seeks to do is uncontroversial and should be supported. For example, the proposed reforms increasing the powers of Companies House so that it has a bigger role in ensuring corporate transparency and guarding against economic crime, and generally provides a better service, are to be welcomed.

However, as the Government acknowledge, for this reform to be achieved, there has to be a transformation at Companies House. Its culture, systems, processes and capabilities will all have to change. The Government’s aim that Companies House moves from being a

“largely passive recipient of information to a much more active gatekeeper over company creation and custodian of more reliable data”

is a giant step. It must have the right personnel in place and the will to achieve this if it is to succeed.

All this comes at a cost and will take considerable time to achieve, as other noble Lords have said. The Government’s impact assessment estimated the total cost of the corporate transparency and Companies House reforms at £289 million. As was said earlier, the cost for the Companies House part of that is £63 million. I would not be surprised if that is an underestimate. While I do not advocate providing a blank cheque, will the Minister confirm that if further money is required to achieve these reforms, the Government will find it?

I have some concerns about how effective this new Companies House will be, even with the new personnel. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, the way in which Companies House has been operating is really quite extraordinary—horrific, in some ways. We have to move it away from being hopeless but at the same time not make it oppressive. The changes should not be such that businessmen who want to incorporate companies and do good business in this country are put off doing so. We should keep in mind that we have to get the balance right.

It is also very important to achieve proper accountability for Companies House; as my noble friend Lord Agnew stated, this is essential. Companies House, in its new role, will have to be supervised; bringing it here for our scrutiny is one factor, but we cannot do that in a proper way. We can look at it only from time to time, so there has to be a proper system of accountability in place. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort that that will be done.

I turn to the proposal that there should be added to the Bill a new “failure to prevent” offence, modelled on the Bribery Act Section 7 offence. The Government have indicated that this is being actively considered and it is anticipated that it will come forward at a later stage, I think in Committee. Obviously, this is very important; it is right that we should look at it most carefully. At the same time, I hope that the Government will demonstrate that such a provision is likely to reduce the incidence of fraud. There have been very few Section 7 Bribery Act prosecutions and, while this measure is largely supported, we do not yet really know its impact. I hope that this will be considered most carefully.

I also ask the Government to bear in mind the following when formulating their proposals. First, there is the issue of jurisdiction. The Law Commission took the view that there should not be a presumption that the “failure to prevent” offence would extend to conduct carried out by employees or agents overseas, and that any decision to make the offence extraterritorial should be considered in the context of the specific offence. For example, do the Government have in their sights UK parent companies being responsible for problems arising in overseas subsidiaries?

Secondly, what offences would be within scope—that is, what comes within the ambit of “fraud” for these purposes?

Thirdly, assuming the provision follows the wording of Section 7, what will the definition of an “associated person” be? What conduct by an associated person vis-à-vis the company would trigger the offence? What would constitute adequate or reasonable procedures? This could be a field day for lawyers—something that many of my noble friends seem to reject greatly. I agree with them. We have to get the drafting right if this is to be put forward.

In addition to these issues, the Government will have to decide which body will have responsibility for investigation and prosecution. This would naturally fall within the domain of the Serious Fraud Office, but a number of issues must first be addressed. I should now refer to my entry in the register of interests and the advisory work that I undertake, which has given me some visibility of the SFO’s work.

Regrettably, over recent years there have been multiple examples of open investigations being mismanaged, and there are open issues relating to disclosure, funding and resourcing, and, perhaps most importantly, accountability. There is a proposal in the Bill that the Serious Fraud Office’s investigatory powers should be extended so that a person must answer questions or provide information to the SFO at a pre-investigation stage to enable it to determine whether to commence an investigation. Although in principle I would support such a proposal, the issues I just mentioned must first be tackled before the SFO’s powers are extended

I suspect that this falls outside the Minister’s remit, but will he support the proposal that, before a new director is appointed later this year, there should be a thorough investigation into how the SFO operates and the reforms needed to improve its performance and efficiency, so that it is fit to take on the burden of the extra work that a “failure to prevent” law would necessitate?

Finally, I turn to the proposal that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s powers be extended. As we have heard, the SRA’s fining powers were increased from a maximum of £2,000 to £25,000 only recently, in May 2022. Concern was expressed at that time that the SRA did not have the structures or experience to make this change, unlike the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which is experienced in a judicial-type process and applying independent scrutiny. I am not aware that this concern has yet been addressed.

In a briefing paper issued in support of the proposed change in the Bill, the SRA states:

“Our ability to deter solicitors from involvement in economic crime has to date been constrained by our very limited fining powers for traditional firms and those who work in them”.


It provides no detail as to how it has been constrained, yet in the same briefing it states that enforcement action was taken against 51 firms or individuals in the year up to March 2022, and 163 firm inspections and 109 desk-based reviews were conducted, so it is not at all clear why this extension of its fining power is necessary. The Law Society has also expressed concerns, and queries how effective this provision will be in combating economic crime in any event.

The proposed unlimited powers could also include many more serious or significant cases that currently go before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. No case has been advanced as to why that should not remain the case. Unlike my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lady Altmann and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I am afraid I counsel against this present proposal, coming so soon after the May 2022 reform and before its effect has been properly tested.

Metropolitan Police: Crime and Misconduct

Lord Gold Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for initiating this debate. There is no dispute that there have been deep cultural issues in the Metropolitan Police and the existing disciplinary regime is not working effectively. Essential as it is to cure the flawed disciplinary system, that is not enough. Something serious has gone wrong beforehand, otherwise a disciplinary process would not be necessary.

I have spent the last 12 years advising major companies that have found themselves under investigation by the SFO and often the DOJ in Washington. Most of these companies have had tight rules and procedures in place, an effective training regime and a strong disciplinary system—yet issues have arisen, resulting in external investigation. To a large extent, the Met is in the same position, and it could learn a lesson from how the commercial world has sought to clean up its act.

The following is essential. First, the tone from the top is key. Whoever is in charge must demonstrate to everyone in the organisation, not just by words but by actions, that only acceptable behaviour and conduct will be tolerated. Sir Mark Rowley’s commitments are a serious demonstration of what is needed and, hopefully, that will be a wake-up call to everyone in the Met. That message from the top has to run through the whole organisation so that every officer, of whatever rank, is on message and, again, shows by their words and actions that only acceptable behaviour will be tolerated.

While conventional training is essential, I fear that some believe that simply attending a lecture course means that the job is done and training is complete, and they can move on to something else. I am afraid that is a fallacy. One has to win over the hearts and minds of everyone in the organisation. It is not simply a matter of following rules; the goal is to reach a point where everyone instinctively does the right thing. Those who cannot have no place in the police force.

That requires everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong. There should be complete transparency so that issues are openly discussed and everyone feels able to question conduct and decisions that may have been taken, even by senior officers. Holding regular team meetings where officers are encouraged to speak of issues or experiences that they may have had is very worth while. This is essential to bring the conventional training to life. Using real-life examples for discussion of how difficult situations have been handled is invaluable.

At such meetings, all attending should be encouraged to come forward to express their views. Nothing should be left unsaid, even if difficult conversations follow. In the perfect society, officers should feel able to raise issues with their seniors in the hope that they will be dealt with sensitively and effectively. Being realistic, I know that in many organisations staff are nervous to speak to management for fear of retribution, and I am sure that this would be a risk at the Met. In the commercial organisations that I have worked with, ethics champions have been appointed at all levels to provide advice and guidance if difficult problems arise and to act as a link with senior management. Those champions are team members, properly trained to understand good compliance and trusted by colleagues who feel confident to raise issues with them, knowing that they will try to resolve the problem. As a failsafe, a whistleblower line should be in place so that those fearful of reporting incidents of bad behaviours to their seniors or even of speaking to an ethics officer have someone to report to. Typically, callers remain anonymous unless they choose otherwise.

Changing the culture in any organisation takes much effort by everyone, and the process takes years for real progress to be achieved. There have to be constant reminders to everyone that good behaviours are essential and that misconduct will not be tolerated. If the Met is to change, it has to start this process now.

Minority Ethnic and Religious Communities: Cultural and Economic Contribution

Lord Gold Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gold]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for introducing the debate. I congratulate the Zoroastrian Parsee community on its 150th anniversary and on making a true contribution to every society in which it occupies a place.

The British Isles comprise a wonderful mix of people from all over the world who have chosen to make their lives here. Generally, all races and religions have been welcomed. However, it has not been without difficulty. For example, the Jews came over with William the Conqueror, but they were thrown out in 1290 by Edward I and only allowed back 350 years later at the time of Oliver Cromwell. Of course, from time to time, Protestants and Catholics have had their problems and we have recently seen an unwelcome rise of Islamophobia. However, overall, as my noble friend Lord Popat said, Britain has a worthy tradition of tolerance for minorities. It has been a safe haven for the oppressed.

Generally, we have welcomed immigrants here to our mutual benefit. We benefit as a country from the rich cultural contribution made by those who have come here. Others have spoken eloquently of their contributions to the arts, sciences, professions, business, sport and even to politics. Individually we have benefited, too, by learning about and experiencing different cultures. The culture that I also had thought about—perhaps because we are speaking at lunchtime—was food, rather like my noble friend Lord Sheikh and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Janner. However, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I must disagree because, as I understood the position, fried fish came here with the Spanish and Portuguese community in 1700. We may have to debate this afterwards.

It is very important that the traditions that have been brought into the UK by minority groups are maintained, not least so that we may all learn from their example and adopt the very best of what has come in. It is also important that, while maintaining their own traditions, everyone also becomes part of the fabric of British society; that there is one nation; that there is true integration. That is what we want. We want British citizens, from wherever, speaking English and playing a full part in the life of the community while also maintaining their traditions. Those Members of this House who come within the classification of the title of this debate have ably demonstrated that they are doing just that. They are setting a great example to the groups with whom they are associated.

While I welcome the debate, it saddens me that we single out any group to speak of its contribution to our society. I fully understand why this has been done and why there is a need to do so, but if we truly had integration here and crushed the prejudices that exist, this debate would not be necessary.

The media have a role. Why do newspapers find it necessary to point out the religion or background of people they write about? I am afraid that it is mostly when the individuals seem to be in some trouble. How can we expect minority groups to feel part of the fabric of our country if persistently we remind them that they are different? Maybe I am being somewhat naive to crave this nirvana but it is an aspiration that we should strive for. I hope this debate moves us along the road to achieving it.