Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness O'Loan

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

It is Amendment 553B.

As part of that, the commissioner should offer a reasonable opportunity for the person to consult the advocate before a decision is made. Flowing from that, there would then be recorded written reasons for whether that meeting has taken place, whether the offer has been taken up and, arising from that, whether any concerns have arisen from that contact.

The point is that those who qualify for this advocate should be disabled, and it should not be a question of a commissioner simply picking and choosing who they feel falls into that category. Even advocates of the Bill would say that this is based upon the idea of autonomy, and autonomy is very much at the heart of this amendment. There must be the opportunity for a disabled person to say that they want to meet or have an advocate. It is a matter of choice for them. Therefore, it would not be forced upon anyone, but the availability of it would be guaranteed.

This is important, because we know that an independent advocate can do a number of things. Mention has been made already of the dangers for people with communication difficulties. If we are dealing with a sensitive subject, getting the communication wrong can be critical. For many disabled people, there can be issues around misunderstanding. It is important that we have a situation in which people realise that there are other options, and to have that independent advocate is critical. It can provide a safeguard, because those discussions can be, to a degree, a fail-safe to try to detect whether any level of coercion has taken place. That is explicitly mentioned in the amendment.

This is a position endorsed by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee has spoken of the fact that, in navigating a high-stakes situation for a disabled person—deciding whether or not a life should end is about as high-stakes as you can get—where there are complex legal and medical processes, no matter how much there are attempts to try to insulate those, if there is the denial of support to that person then that can lead to a form of discrimination against them and leave them vulnerable. Similarly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has indicated that, for disabled people, where there is an opportunity for that additional level of support, it can be deeply empowering to the individual.

The case for an independent advocate is one which I hope the Committee will endorse strongly, because it is a very major concern of disabled groups. Demos has done a number of focus groups among disabled people. One of the concerns that keeps coming back is a worry not simply about coercion itself but that family or the medical experts dealing with this will put forward assisted death as simply being the sensible option and so will be advocating for that. To have someone who is completely independent, and who does not have any particular views or an axe to grind, but who is there to simply talk through the issues with the disabled person, is critical.

In conclusion, this is part of a wider concern. This amendment has been drafted by disabled people. One of the issues, and a frustration among many disabled people out there, is that this Bill is being done to them, not with them. As such, while we in this Committee try to channel those voices, there is at times a danger that we take away those voices. It is important with this amendment, and many other amendments that are motivated by disabled groups and disabled people themselves, that we do not turn a deaf ear to their concerns. We should listen to the concerns that are there and act on that basis.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I have put my name to Amendments 300, 538 to 540, 541 to 543 and 544B in this group because of the importance of independent advocates and the definition of who they may—or should—be made available to. As has already been alluded to, the fact that the Bill provides for somebody with a disability is compounded by the fact that people with a learning disability in particular can want to please those whom they perceive to be in authority over or looking after them. They can think that people will act in their best interests, and they will very often comply with what is proposed to them. That is one of the things that make this issue profoundly important. What is so lacking in Clause 22 is the specificity that would enable one to articulate what an independent advocate is. In a minute, I will come to the amendments proposing a new Clause 22.

Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, proposes a new clause requiring the appointment of special independent advocates for disabled people as defined by the Equality Act. That is a wider definition of those for whom independent advocates should be provided. However, it recognises that, in those moments of considering a choice between life and death, a person needs to be cared for, so that the stresses that they will inevitably experience do not prevent them making an informed decision under the Bill. It is very important for such advocates to be trained specifically in disability rights and the identification of coercion. Amendment 300 is specific in identifying the range of support and advice that must be made available. Amendment 539 similarly requires specific communication training, which is essential for someone to act for a person with a profound disability, as we heard in an earlier group today.

Amendment 541 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, specifies conflicts of interest that would preclude someone from acting as an independent advocate, and I agree that it is important that these be spelled out in the Bill.

Amendment 542 states what the independent advocate cannot do. In particular, they should not be there to support a person to have capacity to end their own life; nor should they advocate for someone, as under the MCA arrangements. Rather, they should ensure that the person seeking to end their own life understands what is being offered to them and understands the consequences of complying with the suggestions, thereby enabling them to respond to the options made available to them.

Amendment 548 seeks to amend Clause 22(4)(b) by making more specific the difficulties that may be faced by a qualifying person.

In responding to the DPRRC report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has tabled the amendments to which he has already spoken. However, I have concerns. The changes proposed by the noble and learned Lord no longer provide an obligation on persons performing functions under the Act to ensure the presence of an independent advocate for a qualifying person. Subsection (9) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 548A says that someone

“‘has’ an independent advocate if an independent advocate is instructed to represent and support them”—

it is not that they need to be present or involved; they merely have to be instructed.

At this point, it is important to remember why the independent advocate is there in the first place: to provide support to someone who has difficulty understanding and who may very quickly forget, after the conversation, anything that has been said to them. That is why the independent advocate must be present. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why he removed that requirement? Does he think that an independent advocate could support someone if they are not present for the discussions and consultations?

More chillingly, subsection (3)(c) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 548A says that a “preliminary discussion” can proceed even where

“the person seeking assistance informs the relevant person that they are content for the preliminary discussion to be conducted without them having an independent advocate”.

It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which a registered medical practitioner asks, “Are you happy to go ahead without an independent advocate?”, and the qualifying person, possibly wanting not to annoy or even to please, says yes—and so the preliminary discussion goes ahead.

Subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new clause provides that the disabled person can say that they do not want an advocate, but how can we be sure that the person understands what an independent advocate is—we are having quite a discussion ourselves this afternoon about that—and what they might bring to them? Is it possible that a tendency towards needing privacy, and perhaps a tendency to not engage with strangers, might lead someone in this situation to decline an independent advocate without really knowing what they are doing? It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain how he intends to prevent this happening or to safeguard the person.

It would, of course, save quite a lot of money if the IA were declined. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has referred to the £2,333 per case. I have a notion that it might be more, because some of these assisted dying cases are going to take quite a long time as they go through all the processes, particularly the process in the house, the hospital or wherever it is that the lethal drugs are to be administered. Assisted dying could take some time. If a disabled person says they do not want an independent advocate, things could move more quickly. There is significant risk here and the noble and learned Lord needs to help us understand the safeguards.

Subsection (8) of the proposed new clause provides a really important definition of an independent advocate, by saying that it is someone who represents and supports a qualifying person

“in connection with … anything done under this Act, by or in relation to the qualifying person”.

My questions for the noble and learned Lord are: what support is envisaged here and what is meant by that phrase? What support is the independent advocate going to provide when the doctor is providing the lethal drug under Clause 25(8)(b)? Is it assisting the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the lethal drug? What is “support” in this context and that place? Is it possible that the person seeking to die might expect their independent advocate to hold the cup for them or press the syringe with them? Is the clause clear that support cannot include any active role? That would be vital.

Surely this could open the door to an interpretation by those who perhaps have malign intent—I am thinking about coercion here—that the independent advocate can do more than listen, explain and communicate. I wonder what is meant by Clause 25(8)(b) in any event. How far can the doctor go in helping the

“person to ingest or otherwise self-administer”

a lethal drug? We will get to that later, but what does it actually mean?

There is a massive difference between helping with communication and support and being present when someone takes lethal drugs to end their own life, or is assisted to do so by a doctor, and supporting that process. Amendment 549A does not add the kind of clarity required, but it does allow the independent advocate to access the person’s medical records or require information from those records. That seems to suggest that this independent advocate would require some kind of medical expertise, which has not been previously suggested. I do not know what the actual purpose of subsection (3)(d) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 549A is. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain it to me.

There is a massive danger inherent in the terribly loose drafting of both Clause 22 and the noble and learned Lord’s proposed new clause in Amendment 548A, and some of the additional material contained in Amendment 549A. Can the noble and learned Lord explain why he has drafted an amended clause which seems even more deficient than the original Clause 22? Needless to say, I also support Amendment 549C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which would apply if Amendment 549A were passed.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness O'Loan

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, this part of the Bill provides for history and memorialisation. It is about creating as true and honest an account as possible—one which has integrity—of what happened during our tortured, troubled past.

This is hugely sensitive. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. All I will add is that, given the fact that the eyes of the whole community will be on those who are attempting to deal with these matters, it is vital that there is equity and fairness for all.

I fully support Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in particular. It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences. We see at regular intervals events from different sections of the community, not just the republican community, which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions that caused immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Such events cause great pain; they can reignite the terrors and agony of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I rise to support the amendments tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, but also to give a broad welcome to this group in its entirety—notwithstanding some of the major concerns that have been expressed by ourselves and others from across the Chamber about the overall contents of the Bill. From that point of view, no amendments can make the Bill itself acceptable. Nevertheless, actions that we can take to deal with the issue of memorialisation have a level of importance.

Memorialisation can be a force potentially for good, but we also need to be aware that it can also be a major force for further problems and further evil. If done correctly, memorialisation can be beneficial in helping to remember innocent victims and, one hopes, helping towards a level of reconciliation. If we get the conditions right, that can be something of benefit to society and, potentially, to some families. But there is a real danger that memorialisation can be got wrong, which is the thrust of the amendments that we have proposed. It is about trying to provide a level of consistency.

As in previous groups of amendments, we are talking about the real danger of a glorification of terrorism, which must be prevented—certainly from anybody who seeks to benefit from this legislation. It is also the case that, if memorialisation is used as a back door to glorify or justify terrorism, it would be deeply damaging to society. It is not simply a question of rubbing salt in the wounds of the innocent victims and their families—although, if there were no other consideration, that would be a reason why Amendment 172 needed to be proposed and supported completely. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated, it goes beyond simply dealing with the legacy of the past; it is about the implications for the future and the present day.

We have a generation growing up who did not experience the Troubles but who are clearly susceptible to the message that there was no alternative to violence in the past and that terrorism could be justified today and into the future. That is not simply an academic concern or one that might be moot. We have seen dissident organisations sucking in those young people to be directly involved in terrorism. That is the real danger for the future. Let us send out by this legislation, or at least through these amendments that we are putting forward, a very clear and unambiguous statement: there was always an alternative to violence. That is why, throughout the entire history of the Troubles, there was never a majority in either community for violence; it was opposed by the ordinary people throughout, and it was a minority on both the loyalist and republican sides who engaged in that terrorism and the wickedness and pain that it caused. It is critical that we send out the clear message that there was no justification for terrorism and that there was always a democratic alternative.

Allied to that, we cannot be ambiguous about those who went out to perpetrate the evil of terrorism, from whatever side they came, and those who were the innocent victims. Therefore, it is right that we draw this distinction, which is in line with some changes that the Government have made in other spheres. That is why Amendment 173 is also critical.

It is also the case—and why I welcome the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—that, overall, it is critical that memorialisation is approached with academic rigour and diversity, and a balanced approach that provides a fair and accurate summary of what happened. Again, if this is a one-sided process or one that in some way gives some level of light to those who would argue for violence in the past, it will do irreparable harm. Therefore, the academic approach that needs to be taken is critical.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, on an overall tone in regard to the Troubles. One thing that has struck me as a former Education Minister is that, unfortunately, at times, we see the ignorance of history. We see young people who simply do not know what happened. It is therefore important that we educate people in a neutral and fair way. There is no doubt that there are contested opinions and views as regards Northern Ireland but there cannot be contested facts. That is why we need to approach this with a level of academic rigour, and that is why I welcome the amendments.

Finally, there is an iterative process to be done, particularly with victims’ families, regarding memorialisation. It may well be that, as part of that process, there is the gathering of an oral history of the stories of the Troubles. It is important that people are able to do that through organisations with a good track record of fairness and balance, and organisations which we can trust. I declare an interest as a member of the Linen Hall Library, which for many years has taken a wide range of views and worked with all parties on reflecting the troubles in a fair and historic manner. It is a role that the library and others can play. We need to make sure that that is not one-sided or biased in any way, and in particular that we draw a clear-cut distinction between, on the one side, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who simply wanted to get on with their lives and the victims, and, on the other side, the perpetrators.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness O'Loan

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Clause 18 and immunity from prosecution. Those provisions are profoundly flawed, as was stated just two weeks ago by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which condemned the immunity provisions.

This group of amendments is described as relating to glorification. They seek to ensure that a person seeking to avail themselves of the immunity provisions that we have discussed, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, is not engaged in activity which precludes reconciliation. For that reason, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord. We have seen a whole range of activity which undermines attempts at reconciliation on both sides of the community and activity referring to past atrocities and glorifying those involved. The noble Lord gave a very graphic example in South Down.

I think also of the murals, in particular one in north Belfast that I regard almost with terror; it depicts two hooded gunmen who say, “Prepared for peace, ready for war”. It is a declaration of war and has stayed there regardless of all the attempts at promoting reconciliation. Many of these murals have been painted over, but some very deliberately have not. The problem is that there is nothing to be glorified in shootings, bombings, torture or exile. We all know that what results from those is pain, trauma and terror that sometimes lasts a lifetime.

I have worked with people who were at some of those incidents, where gunmen arrived to shoot somebody in a workman’s hut, or something like that, and 20 or 30 years on they still live in terror of those who came, because they did not get shot dead and others did. So I do support those amendments.

I have put my name to Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because that seeks to prevent individuals who have been granted immunity from profiting from their conduct, in relation to the offence for which they might be granted immunity, through empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit such activity.

I have put my name also to Amendment 177, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, which creates a new offence of glorifying terrorism. I think it could be quite difficult to prosecute and it may need a little fine-tuning. Perhaps the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has indicated how we should approach this, namely by accepting the purpose of the amendment and agreeing on that.

For the moment, the immunity provisions themselves have been roundly condemned, nationally and internationally; there is no merit in them. I hope that, ultimately, your Lordships will reject not only immunity provisions but the Bill also.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, in terms of this group of amendments, I think most of us would be of the view that we do not regard the Bill itself as being acceptable, so this is not an attempt to turn something that is unacceptable into being acceptable, but there is, at least, a duty on us to try to make what improvements we can.

We do not agree with concept of immunity, but it is undoubtedly the case that, if there is some provision for immunity, it has to be on the strictest conditions. Therefore, provisions that are contained within these amendments, which rule it out in circumstances where somebody is preventing reconciliation or glorifying terrorism, is a step in the right direction. There is deep hurt caused to victims of terrorism and their families whenever they see those who have been engaged with terrorism glorifying it. I think this is not the intention of the Bill, but there is a danger that, if the Bill were to go through unamended, it could inadvertently facilitate these “terror tours” or “terror talks”, and unfortunately almost act as encouragement, because those who have previously been involved in those activities will feel they have a level of carte blanche to do that. It is important we do not see a rewriting of history.

It is also the case that the glorification of terrorism per se is wrong. It does not matter whether it is a glorification of republican or loyalist terrorism, or terrorism from another part of the world; it is deeply wrong. As others have said, this is not simply about the past; it is about the future also, and it is deeply concerning that at times we are seeing the casualisation of the celebration of terrorism, and the embracing of it, particularly by a generation who never experienced it.

I will give two recent examples which are not hearsay; one of them is on social media. Shortly after the Omagh shooting, police moved in to make arrests and they arrested a young man who was not even born at the time of the Good Friday agreement. Somebody videoed that occasion, when some of the neighbours were coming out and applauding the person as they were being arrested. That is deeply worrying. On another occasion very recently, a friend of mine sent me a screenshot of a product that is available not on some niche website or from a paramilitary-linked group, but from a mainstream, UK-wide online shopping facility. It was a card you could buy for £3.50. It had a picture of someone in paramilitary uniform, wearing a balaclava and a beret, and had the phrase “Tiocfaidh Ár Lá” on it. Underneath it said, “Happy Mother’s Day”, which is quite chilling. And that is the problem. We are, unfortunately, reaching a point where there is a normalisation of the glorification of terrorism, so I believe that these are important steps to take and I hope that the Committee can unite around these amendments.