Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Grabiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, I will address two points. When you read the debates in the other place, you immediately see a strong focus by proponents of the Bill on the pain and suffering of the terminally ill individual in the period leading to death. That distress and suffering also impacts the lives of the family and friends of the individual. This point has been made by other noble Lords and was pressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his opening remarks. The curiosity is that, when we examine the conditions or safeguards designed to ensure, so far as possible, the integrity of the process devised for ending a life prematurely, there is a striking omission from the drafting. Specifically, no condition has been inserted to the effect that the patient should, still less must, be suffering pain or anguish of the kind that has been emphasised.

This looks like a mismatch or non-sequitur. It is a convenient and emotionally appealing argument for those who propound this dramatic change in our law to stress the suffering of the patient. We all hate the idea of our nearest and dearest having to live with excruciating pain, but for some reason the Bill does not make the existence of that pain one of the conditions that needs to be satisfied before assisted death would be legally permissible. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will be able to enlighten the House with an explanation for the non-sequitur. Alternatively, he may support a suitable amendment to deal with the point. We shall hear his view when he winds up. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made a similar point a little earlier.

The other point I want to draw attention to is that the conditions identified in the Bill are quite inadequate to cope with coercion—by which I mean family or social pressure put on the patient, which impacts or undermines what should genuinely be the free choice of the patient. Where money is involved, people have been known to misbehave and to do so badly. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, took a different view, with which I profoundly disagree. The point is neatly, if rather crudely, captured by the expression, “Where there’s a will, there’s a relative”. Google attributes this remark to the comedian, Ricky Gervais, but it is a serious point.

At first blush, the proposed safeguard is the requirement for an opinion of the attending doctor, plus that of an additional independent doctor, supported by a panel which includes a lawyer—why lawyers are said to have any special capacity I do not begin to understand. I ask: what does any of this mean in practice? I am afraid that years as a lawyer may have made me a bit cynical. In particular, the reference to the involvement of the panel, including a lawyer, looks like a piece of window dressing. If two reputable doctors are in agreement, it is impossible to see what useful function the panel can perform. The panel cannot gainsay the joint view of the medical practitioners; they are the experts. By parity of reasoning, it is obvious that if the two doctors have not agreed, the case will never get to the panel.

Unsurprisingly, it is not suggested that the panel should have the power to summon witnesses or to satisfy themselves whether the patient has been coerced or encouraged in the direction of suicide. I would add that coercion can be a thing of great subtlety. Even in court, where the validity of a will is debated, with all the panoply of documentary disclosure, witness statements and cross-examination, the truth may never emerge. None of these courtroom safeguards are contemplated by the Bill. The reference to the requirement for a panel to approve the Bill is just a fig leaf calculated to cover the doubters; on analysis, it provides no comfort. The safeguards in the Bill with respect to coercion are inadequate and I am not convinced that they can be satisfactorily improved.

Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Lord Grabiner Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate asks a difficult question in terms of conversations, security and intelligence. I will avoid those subjects, but there are extensive and ongoing conversations with all our international partners to ensure that Iran is held to account on the world stage, and that includes the US.

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, on the question of the possible involvement of the IRGC on the appalling weekend of 7 October, is the Minister aware of reports at the time of Farsi having been spoken during the intrusion from Gaza into Israel? If that is correct, the implication is plain that the relationship between Hamas and the IRGC is a very strong and rather distressing one.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I am not aware of those reports of Farsi having been spoken, but as I have acknowledged, we are aware that Iran funds some of the groups that are under discussion, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Grabiner Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. We should remember the agreement signed in 2015 with the full support of Parliament, and its three pillars: there should be a body to regulate complaints against the press that is based on Lord Leveson’s recommendations; it should not be compulsory for the press to sign up to those recommendations, but there should be certain disincentives to not signing up, such as in the treatment of case costs by the courts; and there should be a back-stop in the form of a royal charter for such a body in order to make sure that there was no backsliding.

If we are honest and look at those agreed aims of Parliament, how are we doing? We are doing badly. We have one regulator, Impress, which, as the noble Baroness said, is compliant and marching towards a seal of approval, but has no serious clients. We have another in IPSO, which falls far short—I emphasise “far short”—of the requirements of Leveson. It is dependent on those who regulate it, with its structure, rules, code, membership and funding all controlled by those it seeks to regulate. It does not provide assured redress for members of the public who have been mistreated, because its arbitration scheme is voluntary. It is confined, like its predecessors, to mediation, not regulation, and its procedures make it hard, if not impossible, to envisage that it would ever impose a big fine on a member. I do not want to impose on the patience of the Committee by going into great detail on any of these. However, I do not blame the chair of IPSO, Alan Moses, who has fought vigorously for a compliant IPSO; I blame the clients.

Having said that, there is still hope. The Government’s own Press Recognition Panel has to report to Parliament, perhaps in September, about how things are going, and it is bound to say that they are going nowhere. I invest more hope still in the fact that Sir Joe Pilling, a former head of the Northern Ireland department, has been commissioned by IPSO to look into its workings. We had a good example of the work of former heads of the Northern Ireland department in the report of John Chilcot last week, and I believe that Sir Joe Pilling is another good man who can do a good job.

However, just at this moment when things hang in the balance, the Government have chosen to take their foot off the pedal. It never occurred to Parliament for a single second—I was present during the debates, as were many noble Lords—that the damages sanctions would not be brought into force. To be fair, John Whittingdale has not said that he will not bring them into force, but that he is not currently minded to bring them into force. While that is his position—while it is thought that the organisation will get away without these incentives coming into force—the chances of fundamental change to IPSO that is greatly required are such as to compete adversely with those of a snowball in hell.

The IPSO non-compliant press is basing itself on the argument it has run throughout—that the suggested royal charter is a tool which could lead to parliamentary and political interference with the press. I happen to think that claim is far-fetched, but believes it. However, that is very much a side issue. The central issue is not the royal charter but whether we are to have a Leveson-compliant regulatory body or are we to have IPSO slipping back over time, as its various predecessors did, into complete impotence and ineffectiveness? In the absence of the sanctions envisaged by both Houses and all parties in Parliament, the whole dreadful saga that led to Leveson is destined, in time, to repeat itself, leaving ruined lives in its wake.

[Lord Grabiner (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I should disclose an interest as having been appointed some years ago now as chairman of the management and standards committee established by News Corp, following the revelation of the phone hacking scandal.

I want to say a few words about Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I respectfully suggest caution as regards whether such an amendment should be approved by the Committee. In my experience—and I have had quite a lot of it—looking at many of the cases arising out of that scandal, journalists tend to be not very good at distinguishing between the public interest and matters which they believe will be of interest to the public. There is quite a fundamental distinction, but one which, regrettably, in my experience is not really appreciated by journalists, even the best of them. It may not be a very wise manoeuvre to introduce this defence into the Bill, as it would encourage journalists to hope that they might secure the benefit of that defence and would thereby be justified in conducting essentially voicemail hacking activity. In my view—and experience confirms this—these cases are mostly about trying to get hold of a story, often a sleazy one, which is wholly intrusive into private lives and little or nothing to do with the public interest. I would be inclined to oppose that amendment if it is pursued.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee long. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee and I will speak briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

During the coalition, I was involved in the discussions which led to the royal charter and the other commitments made by all the party leaders and the coalition Government. It is important either that the Government commence the relevant parts of the Act or, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that this amendment should proceed to a Division when the Bill comes back on Report. The Secretary of State’s failure to commence the relevant sections of the Act is an utter betrayal of the commitments which were made at the time by all parties, including the Prime Minister. Most importantly, it is an utter betrayal of the many victims of phone hacking and other invasions of privacy who were to be protected by the royal charter and the Act. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about this. Perhaps the Prime Minister, before he leaves office, will stand up and ensure that the commitments which he made personally are implemented.