Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, oppose the Bill. I am a Christian and a priest in the Church of England, but I should say that I do not take a whip from my bishop, or even the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I am not here to preach, although obviously if any noble Lord wants to come to church I will tell them where to find me.

I shall not ask anyone in this House to oppose the Bill because of my religious views—because I want them to share them or because I want noble Lords to think that my religious views trump anything else. I want the Bill to be rejected because I believe it would change our society for the worse. When I scrutinise any legislation in this House, my starting point is always: how will it impact the most vulnerable in our society and those least able to speak out? Today is no different. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I are often allies in that very perspective, but not today because I believe that vulnerable people will suffer harm as an unintended consequence of our taking the first step down the road of legalising assisted dying.

Writing in the BMJ, Dr Lucy Thomas reports research showing that the strongest predictors of the desire to hasten death are not physical symptoms, but rather depression, hopelessness and the perception of being a burden. Every priest I know has sat with vulnerable, terminally ill people and heard people deeply worried about being a burden to others. No safeguard can protect against a view genuinely held, sometimes aggravated by depression, that it would be better for their loved ones if they just died, and died quickly. I dread the thought that at that point—the point at which the NHS tells someone about their options—one of the options will be assistance to kill themselves. I also hate the idea that somehow, at the point at which we have nothing but our need, society thinks that we are less valuable and we should come to think that as well.

I cannot share the confidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the Bill will result in improved palliative care. According to a 2020 study of trends analysis of palliative care in 51 European countries, which she may know, the average growth in palliative care services was slower in countries with assisted dying than in those without. Let us be blunt: our NHS is already under massive financial pressure. I do not want us following the US and Canada, where health economists quantify how much money the healthcare budget saves by ending lives prematurely through medically assisted dying. Social care is massively struggling, palliative care is under pressure—it is very hard to get it on the NHS—and hospices have made people redundant. No one looking back at the treatment during the pandemic of those who were old, disabled or in care homes should have any confidence that, when push comes to shove and we are under pressure, our society will always prioritise the needs of vulnerable and disabled people or see their lives as having equal value to those of others in society.

I have heard some incredibly moving stories here and in writing to me, and I have massive compassion for all those who are struggling. Choice matters, but my choice does not get to trump the needs and interests of others. We are not just autonomous individuals. We are intertwined and interdependent, and I believe the Bill would do our society harm.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, what a lovely debate. I should say at the outset that the Opposition are very supportive of this legislation. This is a concise, narrowly focused Bill that does just one thing very well. In that respect I commend it to parliamentary draftspeople everywhere. Today we have the chance to support a Bill that could mean that this is the last Parliament ever where one set of Benches is open only to men. I can assure the church and the Government of our full support in getting this on to the statute book with all possible haste.

As an Anglican I was delighted when the church and then Parliament made the decision that all orders of ministry in the Church of England would be open to women. But, of course, today is not really about that at all. It is not about whether women can or should be bishops—or, indeed, how soon they should be bishops. It is simply about whether women diocesan bishops once appointed should be able to enter this House a little bit more quickly than they otherwise would. There are only two questions that need answering: is action of this kind needed at all, and, if so, is it a fair and proportionate way to do it? On the first, I am personally persuaded that we have heard a very compelling case today that it is necessary to take some kind of action.

When the first measure failed to go through synod in 2012, there was genuine outrage around the country, revealing in the process a heartening and rather higher level of investment in the Church of England and its affairs than many of us might have expected. There was also outrage within Parliament. Given that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has explained that it could take seven years to get a woman on to his Benches, that is something that Parliament would not regard as acceptable, and which people outside Parliament would regard as frankly incomprehensible. So action clearly is needed.

Is the proposal fair and proportionate? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, quite properly took the opportunity to set out the reservations some people have about this process. I should like to address that briefly. He described this as positive discrimination but I rather prefer the term of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. Whenever positive discrimination is proposed, there are usually two standard challenges to it. First, will there be enough candidates of the right calibre? Secondly, is it unfair to those who are not being fast-tracked?

So, will there be enough candidates of the right calibre? Women now make up 44% of the ordained clergy of the Church of England—and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Luce, there are now women at every single level of the church with the exception of diocesan bishops. So there is a strong chance that we would find among their number women of the right calibre. If the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is worried, he should know that four years ago I acquired a new diocesan bishop. Obviously, to my shock, it was someone who had been ordained for only 20 years. He had not even been a suffragan bishop and he did not even stay in the job for two years—but he is a rather fine Archbishop of Canterbury, so I can perhaps reassure him that he need not worry too much on that score.

It is worth thinking about the fact that if we are worried about whether this is fair to men, obviously the measure does not exclude men from becoming bishops. In fact, we have just had a new diocesan bishop appointed in Southwell and Nottingham when in fact there could have been a woman. It does not mean that there will not be plenty of males—probably at least half—on the Bishops’ Benches at the end of the 10-year period, since 14 of the 26 current members of the Bishops’ Benches are at least 10 years away from retirement. So I do not think that the girls are going to take over any time soon.

There is the question of whether it is unfair to individual women, which was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on this. But in the end, an episcopal ministry, like any Christian ministry, is a calling and not a career. Anyone called into that ministry will recognise that it is his or her role to serve the church and not to be served by the church. The example of the Bishop of Lincoln has shown us all the way in that respect. I was pleased to hear the recognition from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about regional representation. Maybe in time the church can reflect on how best to hear the voices from those parts of the country that are not automatically represented.

The concerns, generally speaking, seem to have been addressed very well indeed. Will the Minister say why the Government decided not to include a review in this and simply went for a sunset clause? An opportunity might have been created there, and I should be interested in her reflections on that. We on these Benches are just very glad to support the Bill. As various noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out, the church may have taken a bit of time getting to this point in proceedings, but I think it has rather speeded up of late. Since 1994, thousands of women have been ordained.

When the Bill was debated in another place, my honourable friend Stephen Twigg noted that there was about the same proportion of women in stipendiary ministry as there were Members of Parliament in the other place. As he pointed out, that meant that the church had got to a place in 20 years that had taken the Commons over 100 years to reach. So he can take some comfort from that. As has been noted, it is only three months since the law was changed to allow women bishops. By December, Libby Lane had been nominated and by January she had been consecrated as Bishop of Stockport in a ceremony that certainly brought tears to my eyes, as I am sure it did to many other people’s.

The way that the church has gone about this process has been very good indeed. I commend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues for their determination to pursue this so quickly and for proceeding with sensitivity to those who find this a difficult time in their life within the Church of England. The church led the way in showing us during the whole process how to disagree while being able to be committed still to the mutual flourishing of all. In doing so it set an example to all of us.

The photograph of Libby Lane with Philip North was wonderful, but I hope the most reverend Primate will forgive me if, despite his urgings, I do not end the debate by hugging the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as a way of drawing the proceedings to a close. That does not mean in any way that I am not committed to the five principles or to the idea of mutual flourishing—and I wish him well from a safe distance.

I do not want to say any more than this. With the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I think that Parliament needs this every bit as much as the church does. I so look forward to the day that we will see a woman on the Bishops’ Benches and I know that she will be as much of a blessing to us as she will to the church. We are pleased to support this.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always hard in such an important debate to find myself on the opposite side from colleagues for whom I have both respect and affection, but I cannot support this Bill.

It is a privilege to have been trusted with so many personal stories both in person and in writing. The moving accounts of those who have endured the misery of watching someone they love die slowly weigh very heavily on me, but I have been equally moved by stories of the unexpected richness of the period before death, including the beautiful article by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who wrote in the Guardian of the death of his wife, Denise, as referred to by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.

It has been argued today that this is primarily a question of autonomy. We are told that only a small number would exercise the right to assisted suicide under the Bill but that their wish to do so must be taken seriously. I agree. However, although the wishes of the individual are of enormous importance, in this as in every other policy matter, those wishes must be balanced with the needs and interests of society as a whole. That argument, as well as the arguments made from compassion, requires us to evaluate the impact on others of granting this right to some people.

First, doctors would have to help them to die, and most medics and medical organisations that I have heard from are wholly opposed to this Bill. Seventy-seven per cent of GPs told their royal college that they oppose legalisation, as do the medical royal colleges. They do so in part because they recognise the asymmetry of the doctor-patient relationship, and I confess that I worry about the effect on that relationship of introducing assisted suicide as a tool in the doctor’s bag.

What of the wider impact on others? Notwithstanding the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Low, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I was profoundly moved by the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thomson. It must give us pause for thought that the majority of groups working with disabled people and representing them oppose assisted suicide, including Scope, Mencap and Disability Rights UK. They do so because they fear that we would see the spread of the view that life is not worth living or that their lives are worth less than those of others. If this Bill were to have the unintended consequence of reinforcing that view, we would all be the losers. I also worry about where the interests of the state lie. If the state or its agents cannot kill people or help them to die then it must treat them and it must care for them, and that will always be more expensive.

I come to the slippery slope argument, which was attacked by my noble friend Lord Harrison. There are times when that argument is deployed weakly, but this is not one of them. Today it is illegal for a doctor to give lethal drugs to a patient with the intention of killing him or her. If this Bill passes, it will not be illegal in certain circumstances for a doctor to do just that, although there is clearly not yet clarity on which circumstances would be covered by it. However, for the slippery slope argument to fail, the Bill’s supporters would need to make clear a case for the provisions in this Bill that would not apply to a wider group. The two main arguments that we have heard advanced today are on the autonomy of the individual and compassion for suffering and distress. I have heard no arguments advanced as to why those cases apply only to those covered by the Bill and not to those who may be suffering but are not imminently about to die, or who may have a range of other concerns but could be affected, including the cases articulated by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. This Bill has no safeguards and I hope that it will not pass. However, I hope that it will go into Committee. I support the suggestion of a royal commission to look at it.

Personally, I dread the possibility of being a burden. But another way to express that is that I would be reliant on other people to care for me. I confess that in the times of my life when I have been dependent, I have hated it; but I have also gained profoundly from it, and the relationship with those who cared for me has been one of the biggest gifts of my life. I confess to an increasing emphasis in our society that independence is always good and dependence is always bad, and it makes me worry about the way that we treat sick, disabled and vulnerable people. Moving on from today’s debate, if every one of us who has spoken today could commit ourselves to going out and campaigning just as strongly for the kind of care we ourselves would want for those who want to live, and not just for those who want to die, something very good could come out of today.

Justice: Sentencing of Young Offenders

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that about a half of those convicted for riot-related offences, certainly at the time the Riots Communities and Victims Panel published its report, were 18 to 24 year-olds? If he does not feel that he can give additional resources at the moment to enable the Youth Justice Board to take over, how else can he address the problems of that age group? After all, if we have another set of riots, that may be money well spent.

[Lord McNally]

What I can say is that there is a White Paper in the offing on these areas. It does not take a great deal of homework to identify that age group as perhaps the next best group on which to focus the intensity of care that has been shown in the youth justice system. If we could get anywhere near that success in the 18 to 25 group, we would have a real chance of cutting reoffending, which is the real problem in our prison population and in general levels of crime.

Insurance: Payment Protection Insurance

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend is right to draw attention to another example of abuse. Where such abuses are brought to our attention, we remove companies from the list of those which are able to offer these services. Again, I emphasise that regulations and protection for the consumer are in place. We possibly need greater awareness among consumers of their rights, and I shall certainly take that back.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Financial Ombudsman Service. My best guess is that the banks have provisioned about £9 billion for PPI. If about 80 per cent of cases going to the ombudsman come through claims management companies, then at least £2 billion is going to CMCs rather than going back to customers. Given that, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that his department will act to require CMCs to declare their fees up front and to tell customers that they are not required to use them as they could make a claim themselves for free?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, those are exactly the regulations that pertain to these companies. However, because of the pressure of sales, there is no doubt that people are being misled in that way. We shall need to take further action because, as the noble Baroness rightly says, one does not need a pocket calculator to realise that these companies operate in an area where they can make a lot of money, which should quite properly go into consumers’ pockets.

Civil Legal Aid

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I wish to focus on one particular aspect of the Government's plans for legal aid: the proposal to take social welfare law out of scope. Of the cuts to be made, more than £l00 million will be cut from social welfare legal aid and, as a result, most social welfare law and legal advice will no longer be covered. I want to draw attention to the context in which these proposals are being made. The Welfare Reform Bill is currently making its way through another place. Its proposals are, frankly, a revolution in welfare benefits. Even the DWP, which is not given to overstatement, has described the Bill as,

“the biggest change to the welfare system for over 60 years”.

The Bill will abolish most of the income-related benefits we know about—income support, jobseekers’ allowance, employment and support allowance, tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit—and replace them with a single benefit called universal credit, many of whose key features are not yet clear, even though the Bill is about to come out of Committee in another place. There will also be other changes. There will be more conditionality for people already in jobs. Noble Lords will be aware of tests already being used to determine whether people are entitled to disability benefits. There is a dramatic change in the shift to local decisions on a range of benefits and provision, and there are proposals on the table which would significantly reduce access to the statutory system of child support. These proposals combined will dramatically change the landscape for poor people over the next few years.

My concern is that when Governments make changes on this scale, mistakes inevitably happen. It takes time for those administering new systems to calibrate the decisions that they make and to understand whether new systems will in fact achieve what they are meant to achieve. Many of the decisions made turn out in practice to be good. Others turn out not to be. Having those tested in court or tribunal often helps government as well as individuals understand what Parliament intended. Benefits law is very complex. The new system may be integrated, but anyone who has read the Welfare Reform Bill will know that that will not make it simple. It will simply make it integrated and complex rather than separate and complex. If someone is to challenge a decision if they have their benefits rejected or stopped or they are sanctioned in some way, they will need advice. The evidence is quite stark about the difference in success between those who are represented and those who are not, which is something that will presumably come as a relief to the many lawyers in your Lordships' House. Given all those changes, does this feel like a good time to stop providing advice and help to benefits claimants in those settings? I think not.

As well as the fact that benefits recipients tend to be poor, legal aid is targeted at poor people. Therefore, these changes clearly target the poorest people in our country. I am also concerned, as the CABs have pointed out, that the shift in the criteria for civil funding is moving towards crisis points, such as imminent homelessness, and away from the kind of legal help and advice which might prevent someone becoming homeless in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible move.

Ensuring the rule of law, as is often observed, is one of the foremost duties of the state. But a citizen who cannot challenge a wrong decision by the state simply because they have not got the money cannot depend on the rule of law. That does not mean unlimited spending on legal aid; but it does mean that one does not remove from the scope of publicly funded legal support an entire aspect of law which is fundamental to the dignity and survival of some of our poorest citizens.

When the Welfare Reform Bill comes to this House, I hope very much that the considerable expertise around these Benches will be deployed in scrutinising it very carefully. It is substantial legislation and its changes will make a big difference to the lives of millions of people who depend on benefits. It is the kind of thing that this House does very well and I am sure that the Bill will not emerge in the same state as it came in. But what is the point of our spending weeks of parliamentary time scrutinising legislation, if, in practice, those who are affected by it have no means to ensure that Parliament’s intentions are implemented?

I would ask the Minister to consider one thing in particular. If the Government will not move on these reforms in general, will he consider at least making no changes to the provision of legal aid, advice and help to benefit claimants at least until two years after the Welfare Reform Bill has been implemented in full? The very least people expect is that if Parliament makes decisions, they should be able to get justice according to them.