Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I want to contribute briefly, because we have had some powerful speeches and important contributions. Wherever you stand on the issue of Palestine Action and the arguments around that, one thing that we are all agreed on, as we have heard in this debate, is that the glorification of terrorism is wrong and should be outlawed, because it retraumatises victims and legitimises violence in the eyes of young people today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has done a great service in raising this issue and tabling this amendment. It is particularly focused on Northern Ireland, although, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is absolutely an issue across the United Kingdom. The thing that concerns me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referenced, is the inconsistency in approach by the prosecuting authorities and by the police in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom in relation to this whole area. Whatever law we may pass or whatever amendment we may put in place to strengthen the prohibition on the glorification of terrorism, what effect does it actually have in reality when it comes to the victims seeing people who are carrying out these acts of glorification and speaking in terms of glorification? Will we actually see a difference in prosecutions and effective action against those who perpetrate these crimes?

When I speak to victims, they of course remember the events that have particularly affected them—we have heard the very powerful speeches by my noble friend Lord McCrea and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and all of us in this House from Northern Ireland have either personally experienced acts of terrorism against them or know people who have. The victims want that remembered. They want justice, of course, but they also want not to be forgotten. They want a consistency when it comes to those who glorify these terrible atrocities and acts of violence. They want action to be taken as appropriate, and when they see things being said and done, and nothing happens as a result of it, they lose faith in government, in politics and in democratic processes, and that is why people turn to other means that they think will get something done about such action.

It is very important that we have proper and appropriate laws in place against the glorification of violence or terrorism right across the United Kingdom. What I would ask for is consistency on the part of the prosecuting authorities and the police to take this matter more seriously than they do and have a common approach throughout the United Kingdom.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to express my sympathy in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The Minister will recall that, some months ago in Grand Committee, we discussed the noble Baroness’s amendment on this question of the glorification of terrorism. I absolutely respect the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and others about ambiguity, which clearly exists in some of these contexts, but for the issues that the noble Baroness talked about, there is no ambiguity—“Ooh ah, up the Ra” means only one thing. There is no ambiguity either in Kneecap—the word itself refers to glorification of a sadistic paramilitary act. When I spoke that day, many Members in the Room had not heard of Kneecap. Since then, Kneecap has become much bigger. I understand completely the difficulty the Minister has now in concluding, but I wish to convey to him this problem. Since we spoke that day, the glorification of terrorism has not abated or weakened; it has actually increased. Entire communities are getting locked into this, and that is a problem that faces this House.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in my view, this Bill invites us to cross into completely new and dangerous territory. Although it has been argued that we already, in the law, allow for intervention, we would be permitting for the first time the policy and widespread practice of ending life by medical means. It would be a fundamental alteration in how we understand the purpose of medicine, the duty of the state and the value that we place on life itself. It is not the natural course of dying with support but the deliberate intervention to end life. If Parliament is to legislate on such a grave matter, the language we use should be transparent and precise so that the public understand fully what is at stake.

It is assisted suicide and we should call it for what it is. Human life carries dignity and meaning in every stage and circumstance. That worth is not reduced by age, illness or disability. When people fear pain, we must provide support for better relief. When they fear loneliness, we must ensure companionship and support. When they fear neglect, we should guarantee care. The solution to suffering is not to make death one of the prescribed remedies.

A number of issues have come up time and time again and it is right to emphasise them because they are at the heart of the concerns that people have. People have written on many issues. I thank people for getting in contact with me. A central safeguard is said to be the requirement of the six-month prognosis. We have heard about clinical prediction of life expectancy oftentimes being totally unreliable. It is an estimate, not a certainty. Doctors acknowledge that such judgments can be mistaken. If a person’s eligibility rests on a calculation that is inherently fragile, the foundation of the safeguard is insecure.

One of my main concerns, shared by so many people, is the pressure on older people. Even where explicit coercion is absent, people will feel that they should choose an earlier death to relieve others of responsibility or to reduce demands on family or care systems. Evidence from abroad shows that individuals frequently cite such considerations in their decisions. There will be a new and silent expectation on those who already feel vulnerable.

Then we are told that this legislation is narrow in scope. Experience indicates, as many noble Lords have said, that once the principle of assisted suicide is accepted, criteria will broaden, through later legislation, judicial rulings or medical practice shifts. Even if the Bill begins with limits, there is no guarantee that those limits will remain firm over time.

Regarding the safeguards that were outlined so fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his introduction, some of the most significant checks that we were told about were revised as the Bill progressed through the other place. Oversight has moved from established judicial processes to new administrative structures. Definitions have altered. Clarity has been reduced. There is much vagueness. Too much power has been given to the Government, through delegated legislation, to make regulations. Protections appear less certain, even before the Bill reaches the statute book. What confidence can we have in their long-term durability?

We must have regard to what should be our priorities. Across the United Kingdom, access to specialist end-of-life care remains extremely patchy. There was a conference in Belfast just yesterday on palliative care which illustrated the many deficiencies in Northern Ireland. Too many families still face inadequate pain management and insufficient support. Before contemplating a law that allows doctors to hasten death in a widespread way, our first responsibility is to guarantee that everyone can receive comprehensive palliative care of the highest standard. That is where compassion and justice should direct us.

No one who has listened to this debate can fail to understand that everyone who has spoken has compassion, but compassion must be joined with caution. Even those who agree with the principle of assisted dying or assisted suicide must acknowledge that this Bill is grossly deficient, even for that purpose.