Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Cass Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak from the Labour Benches and first congratulate the Minister on listening to the debates we had in Committee. I thank him very much for bringing forward an amendment which is as close as I have seen this Government move to try and patch up some of the problems we are facing but, as I am going to say later, I am afraid I do not think it goes far enough.

I have said in this House before, and I will say it again, that we have been outpaced by technology in this area—“chatbot” was not even a word, I think, at the time that we finally passed the Online Safety Act. The harm which has been described so graphically today in the speeches we have heard so far was unthinkable in those days. We have really opened up a torrent of problems which we did not know we were trying to solve at the time that Bill went through, even though we were proud of the Bill when it happened.

Today, we at least have the benefit of two good choices about how to take this forward. The Minister has brought forward an amendment that deals with the issue but, unfortunately, to my mind, it does not go in the right direction, and I want to explain a bit about why that is the case. The problem we are facing constantly with the Online Safety Act is that what is in the wording of the primary legislation is at variance with the way in which it is interpreted and implemented by the regulator. There are good reasons for that, which we do not need to go into today, but a gap has emerged between that which we in this House wanted to be happening now—out there with our children, with our families, with those who are using the internet for the benefit it all brings—and how the regulator is able to operate. It is too slow, lacking in ambition about where it is trying to go and I do not think it has all the powers it needs in the way that the Bill sets them out. Even if it did, I do not think the way it is structured allows it to move forward.

I say to my noble friend the Minister that it cannot be right to further complicate the situation by bringing forward powers to be held in the hand of the Secretary of State to try and remedy a structural fault elsewhere. That is why I think he should think very carefully indeed about the noble Baroness’s amendments, which set out—sometimes in painful detail, but certainly for real benefit—exactly what we will not tolerate in this online space. We should have done it in the Online Safety Bill. We did not, but it is not too late to catch up now. Simply taking powers, some of which are dangerously beyond what this House would normally agree, is not the way forward. I hope if the votes tonight go against him, he does not take it too badly but works with everybody here who cares so much about this to try and come forward with something that will begin to address the problems we face.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. When it comes to assessing risk to children, a plastic bath duck has better risk assessment than AI chatbots. I fully support my noble friend’s amendments.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others; I commend them on bringing them forward. Social media companies have captured our children’s attention, and now AI chatbots are coming for their affection—and worse. In legislating against harms caused by technology, we are always going to be playing catch-up, but we need to learn quickly to play catch-up much faster. These amendments offer us the opportunity to do that, and we should seize it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Cass Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, like others, I thank the many people on both sides of the debate who have written to me to share their views and deeply personal stories. For the sake of transparency, I will say that, on a personal level, I am supportive of the principle of assisted dying in very narrowly defined circumstances. However, I am deeply concerned about the Bill as it stands and do not consider it either safe or deliverable. I will focus on just one aspect.

As part of the consent process, the Bill requires three different doctors—the one undertaking the preliminary discussion, the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor—to discuss the primary diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options, as well as palliative care options, including symptom management. The latter two doctors must also assess for coercion, domestic abuse and capacity, as well as discussing the assisted dying process. I believe I am the most recently retired medic in this House, having given up my licence to practise last month.

Throughout my recent review, I devoted much time and discussions to thinking about meaningful informed consent. Back in the day when I was a junior houseman, we were expected to take consent without knowing much about the relevant procedure or how adequately to answer patients’ questions. We have come a long way since then. Options are explained to patients first-hand by clinicians who are specialists in the topic they are discussing, because it is impossible for other doctors to be up to date with a rapidly evolving range of treatments. You may assume that in the case of those seeking assisted dying, this has already been done by the treating doctor, but when someone imparts a serious diagnosis, you often blank out everything that is said thereafter and may be fearful of asking additional questions.

We know nothing about the background and qualifications of the three doctors who are expected to fill this potential gap. The latter two are at least supposed to be able to examine the patient’s medical records and speak to treating professionals, but written records are rarely adequate as a basis for such discussion and there are major complexities in doctors external to an organisation accessing electronic records. Furthermore, the treating doctor may not be available in a timely way. As for advising on palliative care options, the only professionals who can explain the full range of symptom-control measures are palliative care consultants.

In other words, the co-ordinating and independent doctors are being asked to take on two wholly different roles. The first is to substitute for a full multidisciplinary assessment involving the team managing the primary diagnosis, a palliative care specialist and, in some circumstances, a psychiatrist and a social worker. I submit that such an MDT assessment should be a core NHS function. It should identify the patient’s main concerns and fears and share information about possible options, ideally in a family context. This should happen up front, before discussions about an assisted death, rather than at the end of the process, when it is far too late to generate a trusting relationship.

The second role is the process of consenting to assisted dying, which should be considered separately once other options have been discussed and rejected. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, gave, I believe that this should be through a service external to the NHS.

I have worked in MDTs throughout my career, and the key is respecting the unique skills of colleagues and listening to their views, so I have formed my views on this topic on the basis of not just my experience but, in large part, by listening to organisations representing key professionals: GPs, psychiatrists, palliative care consultants and physicians. I strongly encourage noble Lords to take their views very seriously in further deliberations, and for that reason I will be supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger.