Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the many people who have written to me to beg me to support the Bill, and I do. So many of those letters tell a horrific story of watching a loved one suffer. The proportion of those letters that are in support compared to those opposed is overwhelmingly in favour, by a ratio of 4:1.

But today, I speak for myself, for my rights, for my autonomy, for what I want to happen should I face the appalling circumstances of a terminal illness with six months to live, and for my right to choose. Autonomy is a central principle in modern ethics and law—the right to make decisions about your own body and life. If people can refuse life-saving treatment, create advance directives, or choose risky medical procedures, consistency suggests that they should also be able to choose when and how they die if terminally ill. Assisted dying does not force anyone to end their life; it simply respects the choice of those who want that option.

We already recognise the right to live according to one’s own values in freedom of religion, reproductive choices, sexual orientation, and marriage or not. So why not with this, the most intimate and important decision of our lives? Choosing assisted dying should be framed not as a rejection of life but as an embrace of dignity. People facing terminal illness or unbearable suffering may wish to avoid a drawn-out decline that strips them of control, of independence, of even their ability to recognise themselves. Respecting their choice acknowledges their humanity, rather than reducing them to passive recipients of medical care.

John Stuart Mill’s philosophy was that individuals should be free to make their own choices unless they harm others. Choosing to end one’s own suffering does not harm others, whereas forcing someone to endure against their will is a harm.

There is a divide. Those with means can travel abroad to access assisted dying, creating inequality, and often a lonely end. Allowing it locally ensures that choice is not only for the wealthy or the privileged. When assisted dying is illegal, people sometimes take desperate or violent steps to end their lives. Allowing a safe, regulated pathway gives people peace of mind and reduces traumatic situations for families and healthcare workers.

I thank Kim Leadbeater for her calm and thoughtful approach to addressing the fears that people naturally have about coercion. It seemed to me from reading the Commons debates that those concerns had been addressed and changes had been made. But I have absolute confidence that, should there be any remaining issues that give rise to further concerns, they will be found and addressed in this House.

I say to those with disabilities who are understandably very nervous and worried, this does not apply to disability. Disability is not a qualification. To those who raise palliative care as the answer, I wish it was the answer. But it is not a good enough answer in the reality of the circumstances people face today.

Lastly, I say to all those who may vote against the Bill for religious reasons, assisted dying is not compulsory. If your religious convictions require that you do not take advantage of the Bill, please have compassion and enable us who do not have your convictions to have the right to choose.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, the sooner Musk goes to Mars the better.

I hugely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. A number of countries have introduced mandatory reporting. Of course, the results have varied depending on the country, the scope of the law and its enforcement, and the systems in place to support investigations and victims—and we can learn from their experiences. However, what is clear is that, where this has become the law, there has been a significant increase in the number of reported cases of sexual abuse. That clearly indicates that the very introduction of such laws raises awareness and encourages reporting by professionals, particularly teachers, doctors and social workers.

There are many examples of where mandatory reporting can be part of a strong safeguarding system. It can identify inappropriate relations, where a child is receiving excessive attention from an adult. It can notice signs of abuse. It can identify online exploitation, where a teacher or school counsellor becomes aware that a student is being coerced by an adult into sharing explicit images online. It can identify familial abuse, where a child confides in a social worker about being abused by an older sibling, cousin, parent or family friend. It can identify behavioural changes, where a child suddenly displays extreme changes in behaviour, such as aggression, withdrawal or fear of certain individuals. It can note what a child discloses during therapy, when a child shows signs of neglect or when a child is overheard describing sexual acts involving themselves and an adult. It can come across evidence of institutional abuse. The examples go on and on.

However, there are also challenges, which several Members have raised. When the many reports come in—because I trust that this legislation will be passed—they will not all meet the threshold for substantiated abuse, and therefore there will be a strain on resources. There is also the fear that mandatory reporting could deter victims or their families from seeking help; for example, in a healthcare setting, patients and/or their parents might withhold information from doctors out of concern that it will trigger a report. As has been raised, it can lead to false or unsubstantiated claims, which can cause immense harm to innocent accused individuals.

There are examples of overreporting, when professionals report cases out of a fear of legal consequences for failing to report, even when abuse is unlikely. There is also a danger that in situ—in healthcare, counselling, children’s social services, et cetera—mandatory reporting may harm trust between professionals and clients, especially if the clients fear legal or social repercussions. There are issues around breaches of confidentiality, retaliation and a fear of reporting, the risks of mismanagement where there is insufficient training, and harm to children where they are removed with insufficient cause.

However, it is the case that mandatory reporting laws have helped foster a societal shift towards recognising the seriousness of child sexual abuse, and awareness campaigns and the legal mandate have reduced tolerance for abuse in settings such as schools and religious and sports organisations. I hugely welcome the Bill. While there are things to watch out for with the introduction of mandatory reporting, which will come, the Government absolutely must address the challenges and fund—I emphasise: fund—the training that mandatory reporting will inevitably bring with it.