Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

I appreciate that I have gone past the 10 minutes, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I have raised a series of questions about what this is going to look like. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has tabled Amendment 480, which gets into the issue of the panel, and so we will talk about that later and he will respond. I will not ask him to clarify that again once he has spoken, but I may return to the issue in group 3.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment 146, in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton, to which I have added my name. It concerns care homes and a duty on the commissioner to identify and monitor emerging risk and report systemic risk to the Secretary of State so that preventive steps can be taken. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has so ably introduced it, I simply convey the apologies from my noble friend Lady Eaton, who sent them last night.

The other amendments that I support in this group—Amendments 436, 439 and 913—I will not go into, in the interests of parity. The last one is about conflict of interest. The others seek to put a duty on the commissioners to serve as an extra safeguard, so that the exercise of the commissioner will not simply be to tick boxes but to request further paperwork if necessary, or that the families will be notified, as in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean. That can act as a trigger for a discussion with the families and perhaps prevent the coercion which can happen.

Amendment 913 seeks to prevent those involved with organisations promoting assisted dying, whether as volunteers or employees, being a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or on the staff. There is a conflict of interest if those who have a responsibility for seeing that procedures for assisted suicide are not abused should themselves be actively committed to the cause of promoting assisted suicide. The conflict of interest is so self-evident. I imagine that it is an oversight that a clause to this effect was not included in the original Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, the sponsor, could comment on that and tell us whether he envisages a conflict of interest and how best we can prevent it.

I associate myself with the very strong expression of support for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who tabled Amendment 913. The support was to give sympathy against the attack on one of the leading medical authorities in this country—a specialist in palliative care who has put her knowledge, expertise and time at the service of those most in need of palliative care. She has done so with her time and her knowledge. Not only that but she has served this country in all kinds of ways: teaching students, seeing patients and building up her profession, which is one of the most important specialisms in medicine. She also gives such service to this House, giving her time selflessly, with her knowledgeable contributions and in sitting on the Woolsack, night after night. We owe her an enormous debt of gratitude, not only in this Chamber but in the whole country.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, the first of which is Amendment 125. I am concerned because the Bill as it stands leaves the responsibility of appointing the commissioner to the Prime Minister alone, with no guarantee of the usual safeguards that are applied to public appointments. As a Cross-Bencher and someone who has been through the independent process— I owe my seat in the Chamber to that process— I believe it is vital.

In October 2025, the Cabinet Office released an updated Governance Code on Public Appointments. The first two requirements are for integrity and openness: Ministers must declare and resolve any interests and relationships, and the processes for making public appointments should be open and transparent. My amendment seeks to bring more transparency and openness, but would leave the final decision with the Prime Minister—once, of course, they have consulted with Welsh Ministers.

There are no such requirements in the Bill for this, just that the commissioner must hold, or have held, office as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court. That is a reasonable assumption. However, there is no requirement for the commissioner to declare and resolve any interests and relationships or for the appointment process to be open and transparent. We have to declare virtually everything that we do, so it is not inappropriate that the commissioner should have to do so as well.

I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. That person has to command respect. However, the reason I am asking for this is also to safeguard the individual. We see in the amendments today that the Bill is weak on data and reporting provisions.

My noble friend Lady Finlay raised what has happened in New Zealand. Simon O’Connor, a former New Zealand MP, described some troubling incidents there around the two doctors. Dr Dana Wensley resigned due to her concerns regarding serious problems with the committee’s ability to oversee the implementation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Dr Wensley is an ethicist. Dr Jane Greville, a palliative care specialist, was pushed out, it is thought, because she was raising too many concerns about the operation of the new law. Both Dr Greville and Dr Wensley went public and stated that the committee’s oversight of the law was so limited that wrongful deaths could go undetected. They cited being extremely concerned about how little information they received relating to patient death, leaving them feeling constrained to the point of irrelevance. They both said that the system was so broken that they would not have been able to identify if somebody had wrongly died.

What happens if normal standards are not followed? We can compare it to someone with significant shares in a drug company being able to decide what drugs the National Health Service could use. As others have said, the assisted dying commissioner will have tremendous oversight. They can make appointments to the list of persons eligible to sit on the assisted dying review panels. They can make arrangements in relation to panels, determine applications for reconsideration and monitor the operation of the Act. This role should be defined by Parliament, not by their own ideas. I would like the noble and learned Lord to give assurance that this appointment process will be looked at to see how we can ensure that the Nolan principles for public appointments will be adhered to.

Looking at the possible scenarios, this individual could be called into a meeting with the Chief Medical Officer to discuss the future of palliative care. They will hold a great deal of power in their hands.

At the Lords Select Committee, Justice Minister Sarah Sackman confirmed that there would be no support to engage or challenge the commissioner. I am very interested in the noble and learned Lord’s view on whether legal aid would be possible to do this. In the case of exceptional funding in coroners’ cases, we might have to be in the position where a person is dead before they get any support to challenge the decision that was taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Absolutely, and therefore the medical examiner’s evidence is that, when they have the body in that circumstance, they are under an obligation, we think, to locate and find a relative. Sadly, this happens more frequently than we would like to think, and the local authority powers to perform a public health burial then become apparent. So, yes, there are these situations.

It is important to clarify this in relation to this Bill, because we have this evidence from the medical examiner that the first the family might know is when they are called by the medical examiner. We need to be clear about that and about the position of families. Is this personal autonomy—that is the conceptual point—so fully and properly enacted that there would be a public health burial, without any obligation to inform anybody that this is happening?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 472, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, to which I added my name, along with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I also support Amendment 941 from the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and I will just say a few words about that.

Amendment 941, to Schedule 2, on the assisted dying panel, would require the social worker to take account of financial dependence, potential financial pressure and potential coercion from someone benefiting financially from a person’s death. My noble friend Lord Deben referred to this apophthegm earlier, but I first heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner: “Where there is a will, there is a relative”. This is a very important amendment, and I hope the noble and learned Lord the sponsor will consider it seriously.

Amendment 472 from the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, would require that the panel must ask the person seeking an assisted death whether they have discussed the matter with their next of kin. We have been discussing this in different ways today. At the very least, this requirement would prompt reflection about those most affected by this action. It might prompt such a chat simply by virtue of asking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, will know that there are quite a lot of cases at the moment where the first that somebody hears of the suicide of someone they love is when they are told about their death. I have two examples in mind. One is Mr Paul Blomfield, who described his father hanging himself and not involving him because he feared that he might be investigated by the police. The other is the wife of Stuart Broad’s father, Chris Broad, who hoarded pills and, as a result of her not wishing to involve her husband, the first he heard of it was when an email came through from her. What does the noble Baroness say to those people under the current law?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

We are proposing and debating a piece of legislation at this moment. We are concerned about the safeguards in the current proposed piece of legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, has proposed that the reviewing panel must raise with the person considering assisted suicide whether they have discussed it with their nearest and dearest. That is a different matter from what the noble and learned Lord has raised. We are discussing a piece of proposed legislation and I am discussing an amendment proposed by another noble Lord.

It is very important for those on whom we have depended and may still depend that we form a society and, as human beings, give support and love to one another—a mother or father who wishes only to support their child, perhaps terminally ill, to live their life as best they can; a daughter, son or sibling supporting their loved parents, sister or brother; or a spouse or best friend.

I do not agree with the premise of the Bill that we are autonomous human beings to dispose of ourselves just as we wish. Whatever freedom we have as human beings is rooted in a network of social relations and responsibilities, especially to our kith and kin. We therefore need to do whatever is possible to ensure that a person’s ultimate decision to end their own life is taken within a familial and social context. This amendment, which I support, promotes that end.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 466, 471 and 474, as well as to Amendments 472 and 485 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gray of Tottenham; I will make different points on those. These are all forms of amendments that were tabled but not debated in the other place. They all seek to strengthen the effectiveness of the voluntary assisted dying panels as a safeguard, because that is what we have been told they have been put forward to provide.

My first two amendments would mean that questioning both the co-ordinating or independent doctor and the person seeking an assisted death is mandatory and not at the panel’s discretion. It is extraordinary that, in light of all the evidence that we heard across the 13 panel sessions of the Select Committee, the Bill currently does not ensure that the panel asks questions of every person seeking an assisted death.

Noble Lords will be aware that, as we have heard, the panels were added to the Bill in the other place two-thirds of the way through Committee in order to replace the High Court, which we were originally told was part of a judge-led process. The panel process has never been piloted or consulted on, and it appears to have been based on the Spanish system—a system of guarantee and evaluation commissions—but of course the Spanish law is very different from the Bill that we are scrutinising, which we have been assured is narrower and safer. The Spanish system, which allows for both assisted dying and euthanasia, does not require a terminal illness from which a person is likely to die within six months, as the Bill that we are scrutinising does; it requires only—in translation—a serious and incurable illness or a serious chronic and impossible condition. The Spanish legislation provides for considerably wider categories. I am sure that those of us concerned about vulnerable people being made to feel that they are a burden are very glad that the sponsor has not proposed them here.

The requirement for a terminal illness with a six-month diagnosis is a meaningful safeguard only if it is properly tested. How can it be said that a panel has done its job if it has not asked a single question of the doctors? How can it establish that the person has not been pressured or coerced just by passively hearing their prepared statement, which may have been drafted under the eye of their abuser? In what way is any of this a suitable alternative for the rigour set out in the first iteration of the Bill, which included the High Court? That is why I believe that these amendments are necessary.

This concern was expressed very well to the Lords Select Committee by Dr Luke Geoghegan, who represents the British Association of Social Workers. He set out the following about how safeguarding usually works in this country and how it differs from the approach of the panels that is currently set out in the Bill:

“An allegation is made or a concern is raised and that concern is investigated, and then that allegation or concern is either upheld or it is not. The challenge for the panel”—


the voluntary assisted death panel—

“is that here this model is flipped. Can we be sure that this person is not affected by safeguarding or coercion issues? It is often impossible to prove a negative, but we can make reasonable assessments on the balance of probabilities”.

The real issue here is that the panel system means there is no other side seeking to show that the test for eligibility has not been met, and there is no cross-examining of the witnesses who say that it has. In the absence of such a legal process—usually the hallmark of our British system—having the panel at least ask some questions of every applicant for an assisted death is surely the absolute minimum that must happen if we are to have confidence in it as a safeguard.

Amendment 474 would make a more discretionary change. It would add a requirement to “consider hearing from” a person’s family and other treatment and care providers. I reiterate that, in the amendment as set out, it is not mandatory. In advance of explaining the amendment, I will provide a counterview to some of the things that we have heard so far. We have heard the discussion about family members in the context of agency. I will talk about it in the context of the variety of autonomy and the context of establishing coercion.

Family members and those who have provided care for the person are likely to be privy to information that has a significant bearing on the panel’s deliberations and decision. Perhaps a son or daughter knows that someone new has recently entered the life of their vulnerable parent, has slowly taken control of their finances and has encouraged them to cut contact with others.

I set out this point reminded by the evidence that we heard from Age UK and the existence of different types of abuse, but particularly romance fraud. In the Select Committee, we heard that Age UK had been contacted

“by families who say, ‘Hang on, I’m really worried that there is this person in my mother’s or father’s life and I’m not sure what their intentions are’”.

The evidence talked about

“the moral hazard for people who stand to gain from older people after their death”.

An example of this could be a carer who knows that the person has struggled with suicidal feelings long before their illness worsened or knows the reason behind the source of their despair. Perhaps, while quietly attending to the needs of the patients they are responsible for, a carer has overheard a friend or family member suggest to the patient that it really would be easier all round if they were to end things sooner rather than later with the help of trusted professionals. I know that we would like to think that this does not happen, but I have spoken already in this Chamber about the first-hand experience of hearing how that is unfortunately the case in some instances.

I am aware that there is a power in the Bill to hear from “any other person”, but this is left so open as to add little in the way of assistance or direction to the panel. My amendment, therefore, responds to the evidence we heard from the professional bodies and provides an explicit steer while still allowing for the panel to conclude that additional evidence is not likely to be helpful or that the process of seeking it would be too onerous.

I also support Amendments 472 and 485 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gray, who unfortunately is unable to attend today. Amendment 472 would require the panel to ask the person whether they have discussed their requests for an assisted death with their closest relatives and to discuss the reasons if they have not. Amendment 485 would provide that this requirement would not apply in the exceptional circumstances where a panel chooses not to hear from the person. These amendments, like mine, seek to highlight the vital insight that family members may have into the person’s wishes or eligibility. If the panel is able to place the person’s request for an assisted death in the context of their relationships, they are more likely to be able both to understand an undeclared motivation behind the request and to detect any coercion or undue influence.

As the Bill has progressed, it has frequently been noted that doctors rarely make serious decisions on their own. The sponsor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, has acknowledged this, which is why the panel itself is so often referred to as multidisciplinary. Here, I note the expertise of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Cass, and others, who have rightly pointed out that the medical assessments themselves should also be multidisciplinary. However, it is also true, as we heard at the Lord’s Select Committee, that patients rarely make decisions on their own. We heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that there is very pure personal autonomy, where somebody makes a decision uninfluenced by anybody else, but that does not reflect the way that people usually make decisions, which is as part of their relationships with others, and that is very normal.

Professor Charles Foster told us that, in the real world,

“decisions about how we exercise our autonomy are made in the context of our relationality”.

We discuss with our relatives what should happen. If someone chooses not to tell their immediate relatives or loved ones about such a momentous decision as ending their life prematurely, that is noteworthy. There may be good reasons for it, as set out by my noble friend Lady Hayter, but that should be for the panel to establish. These amendments do not offend against autonomy and they would not oblige a person to tell their family or friends anything, but they would enhance the information available to the panel and move it further towards being an effective safeguard against coercion and undue influence or an otherwise unwanted assisted death.

A secondary point to these amendments is to make it at least a little less likely that families will have to go through the trauma of finding out about the death after it has happened. Our Select Committee was told by the Royal College of Pathologists that in cases where death is unexpected, families often find out about the death of a loved one when they receive a call from the medical examiner. If passed, the Bill is likely to increase the number of cases where that happens and will put a great strain not only on families themselves but on the professionals who find themselves in that position. I am conscious of time, but it is worth reflecting on, and I ask noble Lords to look at the comments from the Royal College of Pathologists, as that was explained to us.

Amendments 472 and 485 seek to minimise these impacts as far as possible. They would not create an obligation on the person to involve their next of kin, but they might encourage them to have that conversation if they feel able to do so. Ultimately, the more information that is available to the panel about a patient’s circumstances and relationships, the more confident we can be in the panel’s decisions and the regime it would create.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

“if they would have made a different decision had they received effective treatment for a mental disorder affecting their decision-making. To this end, we expect that psychiatrists would be involved in an AD … service in two ways: … the identification and treatment of unmet psychiatric need; and … supporting assessments of capacity to decide to end one’s own life”.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Amendment 178A would require that those who are seeking assisted suicide are referred to a consultant physician in palliative medicine, who will assess them fully and draw up a plan for care. The Bill recognises the importance of patients knowing about palliative care and being informed on the choices, but in so weak a manner that these amendments have been tabled. Other noble Lords who have spoken in the group have very good amendments, which I support, to the effect that a patient would be referred to a specialist team in palliative care or a team which is dedicated to the treatment of this problem.

I propose that, in the first instance, the patient should see a consultant in palliative medicine, who will, one to one, discuss matters with the patient, assess them and prepare the care plan—not instead of the other people involved in the care team, but as the person responsible for doing that. My experience of medicine in other areas is that that is always the first call; care and treatment are then taken from the consultant physician who is responsible.

I say this because other people on a team may lack the detailed knowledge, experience and intellectual rigour of those who have reached the most senior level in their area, and who are responsible for training and leading a team of hospital doctors specialising in their subject. They see many hundreds of end-of-life patients each year. There is also a very good reason to believe that consultants are more likely to be independently minded and beholden to the virtues of their profession rather than the guidance of officials.

The amendment would require a full assessment, because only after an assessment can a patient know the options, as other noble Lords have said, and be in the best position to decide. Yes, it might put a strain on palliative care consultants, but in that case we need more such consultants. We should not put the Bill into effect without them. More broadly, my amendment stresses that, as we see in France and as other noble Lords have said, any move to assisted dying needs to be accompanied by more attention and commitment to palliative care.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Select Committee that your Lordships’ House decided to convene at the end of Second Reading, partly because, although I am sure that noble Lords participating in this debate and this legislation will be fully aware of the evidence we took, this debate is broadcast and followed much more generally, so I think it is useful to put on record some of that evidence. We took evidence on palliative care from experts, some of whom oppose the principle of assisted dying and some of whom do not, but almost all raised concerns about the adequacy of palliative care in the United Kingdom.

In particular, following the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, I quote— I apologise for reading, but I am reading from our report—Dr Suzanne Kite, president of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland:

“Throughout this debate, there has been a strong consensus that current palliative care provision is inadequate, with many services under threat, and that this constrains choice at the end of life. We advocate strongly for the Government to commit to a national policy to ensure universal access to palliative care that is protected from negative financial impact of the introduction of any AD—assisted dying—service, better safeguards for patients, care workers and organisations and a public awareness campaign about normal dying”.


My first question is to the Minister. I realise that she is representing the Ministry of Justice rather than the Department of Health, but I hope she may nevertheless be able to respond. When we discussed the business Motion in the Chamber yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said that the Minister in the House of Commons had suggested that the Government’s next information about the provision of palliative care would not come until after the assisted dying legislation had gone through Parliament. I think many people, whether or not they support the principle of assisted dying or support this legislation in principle, would feel much relieved if they could believe that palliative care was going to be more equitable across the country and that those in more deprived parts of the country would have the same access to palliative care as those in more affluent parts, because there is a disparity.

For many, there is a concern that the choice of an assisted death, which is what advocates of the Bill say they support, will not necessarily be an unconstrained one. If the choice were, “I have been offered everything, including state-of-the-art palliative care, and I still want an assisted death”, that would be quite different from the current proposals. Clause 5 says that the medical practitioner would need to make clear to somebody in a preliminary discussion all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care that is available. But if there is not adequate palliative care available—we know that 100,000 people are already dying without adequate palliative care—then the choice the medical practitioner is giving will not be a real one.

When I raised concerns with the experts who were giving us evidence on palliative care and whether this was a constrained choice or not, there was very much a sense from Dr Kite that she shared the concerns I had raised about the disparities of palliative care and that, for some people, there would not be a real choice. Her response was:

“I share your concern. Our members share your concern. This is fundamental to our position on the Bill”.


Professor Katherine Sleeman, who is also a professor of palliative care at King’s College London and a member of the Complex Life and Death Decisions group, who is not opposed to the principle of assisted dying, said that my point was

“exactly why the CLADD group has suggested that offering a referral to specialist palliative care is not enough. Everyone who says that they want an assisted death should receive a palliative care assessment, and that would go some way—not all of the way, but it would go some way—to addressing what we know about the inequalities in terms of access”.

In light of the evidence we received, I would be grateful to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, how he would respond to the amendments in this group about palliative care. They seem to be fundamental to the concerns not just of people who might be opposed in principle to this Bill but of experts who really understand the detail. It is surely the duty of this House to ensure that any legislation passed really meets appropriate standards, and we should be very cautious about supporting legislation that does not ensure adequate access to palliative care.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, this proposed new clause would in no way reduce public protection, but it would enhance the opportunities for incentivising rehabilitation and safely tackling overcrowding while avoiding the negative consequences of the Government’s decision to reject the recommendation of the independent review and exclude EDS prisoners from earned release.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for earned release, that in addition to compliance with rules to earn early release, there should be meaningful, purposeful activity. Irrespective of how we look on a prison sentence, whether as a punishment, a sanction or a deterrent, engaging in purposeful activity will certainly help prevent recall from early release or reoffending. For all kinds of reasons, it is very important to stop the revolving door of somebody being released from prison and coming back, for one reason or another including reoffending.

In support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I will mention here some work we did at the think tank Politeia, where I am research director. We called it Jailbreak and looked at schemes for what should happen to prisoners once they are sentenced. Among the various proposals that worked was a one-to-one adviser from the moment the offender came in to the moment they were released, who saw they had an education—which has been mentioned before—and that they had engaged in meaningful activity.

Noble Lords might be interested to know about one firm in Sheffield which taught offenders how to make umbrellas and promised them a job on release. Another meaningful activity—if the Minister will forgive my mentioning it—was provided by Timpson, which trained offenders in the craft of shoemaking and repairs, and also offered them a flat when they left, so they could live in a new place to start a new life and cut themselves off from their previous life and contacts, often in a criminal world. These things depended on engaging in meaningful activity, but they certainly contributed to avoiding recall, whether on early release or as a result of reoffending.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 139C takes a rather different approach to the adjudication system. Not for the first time, “The Archers” has drawn to aficionados’ attention issues that we had not considered before, and the adjudication system is a current example. I cannot say that I listened to every episode—although I make quite an effort to do so—but, in that context, an offender who was coming to the end of his sentence had a weapon planted in his cell. He was very worried that he was going to be on the wrong end of an adjudication and that his sentence would continue.

I understand that the current system is handling much larger numbers than would have occurred to me. In a three-month period last year, there were almost 69,000 adjudication outcomes, punishments rose and additional days were imposed more than 1,500 times. I was interested in the consistency between prisons and different governors. The Minister has told us that he gets reports about education and activities. I do not know what comparative records are kept by the MoJ about adjudication outcomes—I am sure that records are kept—and I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that tonight.

I was interested for another reason. I read somewhere —although I could not track it down again—a concern about the quasi-judicial nature of these decisions, which are made without recourse to appeal and without any of the other protections that one might normally see. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister has any comments to share. He had no warning of my asking these questions, so it is probably not fair to expect anything tonight, but I would like to place my concerns on the record. Perhaps he can write later, if he or the MoJ have anything to say.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s Amendment 146, which was supported so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

One measure of a Government’s sovereignty is that they make the law for their citizens—the whole country and their whole territory—and they uphold that law. However, as we have heard this evening, Northern Ireland will not necessarily be included in proposals to deport foreign criminals, as Northern Ireland will be subject to the Windsor Framework arrangements.

We may hold different views about the Windsor Framework. I feel that it was a bad mistake by the Conservative Administration to move from the temporary arrangements of the withdrawal agreement to the permanent acceptance of arrangements that were regarded by both sides—the EU and the UK Government—as transient, pending the best endeavours of both parties to get it right. I am sorry that that did not happen and that we are left with the Windsor Framework, but that is no reason for the arrangements to promote economic EU law in Northern Ireland to apply now to criminal law.

It is a mark of the UK’s sovereignty that it upholds the law for the whole country, and I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, so that the citizens of Northern Ireland can rest assured that foreign criminals will be deported, no matter from where they come. The amendment would also ensure—as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, mentioned—that Northern Ireland will not become a haven for a disproportionate number of foreign criminals fleeing there because they know they will not be deported. For all these reasons, I heartily support the amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I will very briefly go back to a point about Amendment 122A that I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to explain the pressure on prisons and the need for places, but I have already suggested earlier today a far better solution to that.

I will make two points. First, if someone comes here to commit a crime—for example, a drug dealer or a contract criminal—it is no punishment to be sent back. In fact, it is a bonus for them, because they do not have to pay for the return trip. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the most rigorous examination will take place before people are deported.

Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, put the best gloss on it, a more fundamental change is being proposed. Those of us who do not see industrial relations in a confrontational way but encourage the tribunals’ approach should not allow it to be finessed away with common-sense orderliness. The industrial tribunals are special—their composition makes them special—and we should be careful before we lose those qualities in terms of what they deliver to our industrial relations.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but I do not have his great experience or knowledge. I will make a very lay man’s point. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his illuminating outline of the background to this question and the history, taking us through why the Government are now keen to unify the employment tribunals within the overall structure of the tribunal system and keep them more obviously within judicial law than they might have been before.

My question is one of clarification. My noble and learned friend explained that the Government do not seek to reduce or undermine in any way the lay composition of employment tribunals in future. Will there be specific instructions to the Senior President about the composition of the panel, including whether one, two or three members will be present? Will there be guidance on the balance between judicial and lay members?

In particular, I pick up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the employer-heavy element in tribunals. I recall when my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy brought the academic freedom Bill through the House last year. At the time, it seemed important to me that we did what we could to redress the balance for single employees battling against a powerful establishment, often with the law behind them but unable to bear the pressure of finances and the stress that such cases can bring. For these reasons, I say to my noble and learned friend the Minister that it is necessary to keep this in perspective, even if we want to bring it in line with our overall judicial system.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord said that this is not a backdoor to reduce the lay members within the judicial system. He went some way to say how much judges appreciate working with lay members, who are sometimes experts in other fields. The two noble Lords who spoke before me raised concerns on exactly this issue.

Although my brief is to accept the proposals of the Government without reservation—which I do, of course —I have reflected on my own experience. A number of magistrates sit on a number of tribunals; I can think of about 10 colleagues who do this, as it is quite common. Some sit on employment tribunals and some on other tribunals. Sometimes they are experts and sometimes they are lay people in other contexts. I remember a couple of separate discussions, with a magistrate who was a trade unionist and with magistrates who were employers, all of whom sat on these employment tribunals and were sceptical about the changes foreseen by these regulations. That scepticism was about money-saving and about trying to get consistency within the system when there is no merit beyond that consistency itself. There needs to be more of a reason than just consistency to make a change such as this. The noble and learned Lord gave us some reassurances in his opening, but there is scepticism out there nevertheless.

The question that both the noble Lords asked is: after these regulations go through, what criteria will the Lord Chancellor look at, if and when proposals come for more tribunals to be determined by single judges sitting alone, rather than by a panel of three? Will there be a process to review this? We heard from the TUC and I gave my personal anecdotes about colleagues with whom I have sat, and it seems to me that the justification of consistency alone is not sufficient. There needs to be a more profound justification to make this change. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s response.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a Member of this House whose memory of legal aid probably goes back to before others were here. I was called to the Bar in 1963 and took an active part in legal aid, being not only a recipient of legal aid cases but sitting on legal aid committees. I view it as one of the great social achievements of the Labour Government ending in 1951, and it has been a matter of great sadness that its extent and benefit has been so diminished over the years.

We have here a very important need for legal aid. Most if not all of those needing legal aid will not be able to speak English, will have no knowledge of English law and will be left isolated without that assistance. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach—although, most regrettably, he is not putting it to a Division.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think the 1949 measure was a good measure following the Rushcliffe report. It had cross-party support then, and legal aid continues to have cross-party support.

I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it would be a very good thing for us to be able to revisit the legal aid budget and ensure that many of the cuts, both to scope and to litigants, could be reviewed with a view to being more generous and trying to revisit the consequences of both the 1999 and the 2012 Acts. I am with the noble Lord there.

However, because we have seen such cuts right across the board and a reduction in scope across the board, I have concerns about this particular amendment for these cases unless and until we can grant similar support to many of the cases in this country that are left without support as a result of what has happened over more than 20 years. I know that noble Lords would say that this is a different case, but many of these cases are claims of great merit, but Governments have to make decisions. For my money, I would prefer to have a fair redistribution of the legal aid budget between people who have been cut out of it—many of whom would have been eligible right throughout the 20th century—and other cases that noble Lords have mentioned.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for moving government Amendment 154, which, as he said, includes Northern Ireland for the purposes of this Bill.

Regarding my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 155, I agree with every word he has said. He introduced it by saying that legal advice is a fundamental right for the asylum seekers themselves. To address the point the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, made, it is about the way we should see ourselves as a country: making sure that people in the most desperate situation can avail themselves of the right to access our laws. The only way of doing that is with appropriate legal aid. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the point he made, as well as with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Access to high-quality legal aid within 48 hours would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. With adequate legal aid, people would be better able to make timely claims, increasing efficiency within the Home Office and the justice system. They would know what evidence they needed to produce and understand their prospects of success to enable them to make an informed decision regarding whether and how to proceed with their claim.

Amendment 155 would build on current legal aid arrangements. I understand that a good precedent for this is the facility for people detained at police stations. When a person is taken to a police station and it is decided that there is no criminal element to their case, they are allowed to access an immigration lawyer to obtain immigration advice. The police call the duty solicitor call centre, and there are lawyers on a duty rota to take up the case, provide immigration advice and decide on the merits of the case. A new 48-hour system would involve allocating a solicitor to an individual upon them entering detention.

For these reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Bach and believe that his amendment is a necessary measure to ensure access to justice for those in the immigration and detention system. I urge the Minister—who has particular expertise, it has to be said, in the field of legal aid in the civil courts—to consider this as favourably as he can. I understand that there is a review under way, but the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bach goes to the heart of the way that we, as a society, should treat the most vulnerable people when they come to our shores.