Olympic rower and former cabinet secretary made peers
The pair, along with former national security adviser Tim Barrow and former John Lewis chairwoman Sharon White, will join the House of Lords as non-aligned crossbench peers.
Baroness Grainger, now chairwoman of the British Olympic Association (BOA), is Britain's most decorated female rower.
In addition to winning gold at the 2012 London Olympics, she won four silver medals – in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016 – and six world championship titles.
Baroness Grainger then spent eight years as chairwoman of UK Sport before leaving the post this year and taking up the leadership of the BOA.
Lord Case became cabinet secretary in September 2020, having previously served as private secretary to the Duke of Cambridge. He stepped down at the end of 2024, having led the Civil Service during the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the funeral of Elizabeth II.
But his tenure was not without controversy, as he was forced to recuse himself from leading an investigation into the 'Partygate' scandal following allegations his office had held a Christmas event during lockdown.
Lord Case was not one of those fined over the scandal.
Lord Barrow played a key role in Brexit negotiations as the UK's representative to the EU between 2017 and 2021, before becoming national security adviser under Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.
He had been lined up by Mr Sunak to take over as ambassador to the US, but the change of government last year led to Sir Keir Starmer appointing Lord Peter Mandelson instead.
Baroness White was the first black person and second woman to become a permanent secretary at the Treasury, before serving as CEO of Ofcom between 2015 and 2019. She then chaired John Lewis between 2020 and 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
How your MP voted in historic abortion amendment as law change backed
MPs voted by a majority of 379 to 137 to back a call by Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi which ensures women will not be prosecuted for ending their own pregnancies MPs last night backed a historic amendment that will decriminalise women who end their own pregnancies. Politicians from all parties were given a free vote - meaning they were not bound to follow party lines. Legislation put forward by Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi was backed by a majority by 379 votes to 137. Ms Antoniazzi said every prosecution of women is a "travesty". It is the biggest shake-up of women's reproductive rights in six decades. The result was hailed as a "landmark" by backers, but critics branded the change in the law "dangerous". Several Labour frontbenchers, including Ed Miliband, Liz Kendall, John Healey and Pat McFadden voted for the change. Conservative shadow eduction secretary Laura Trott also voted in favour, but the majority of her colleagues, including Kemi Badenoch, were against. See our tool below to find out how your MP voted. But critics including Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voiced their opposition to the change. At the moment abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks, although there are exceptions if a woman's life is in danger. Home medication is permitted up to 10 weeks. In the past three years, six women have appeared in court in England charged with ending or attempting to end their pregnancy illegally. Ms Antoniazzi told the Commons that women should never be prosecuted. She said her amendment to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill was a "once in a generation" chance to change the law. Under Ms Antoniazzi's amendment, a woman would not be prosecuted in relation to her own body, but others including medics and coercive partners could be. A separate amendment was put forward by fellow Labour backbencher Stella Creasy, which would offer legal protection to all involved. No vote was held on Ms Creasy's amendment. Ms Antoniazzi told the Commons: "This is urgent. We know multiple women are still in a system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait." Earlier this year Nicola Packer, 45, was acquitted after being tried for taking abortion medicine at home during the Covid pandemic when she was around 26 weeks pregnant. She told jurors she did not realise she was as far through her pregnancy as she was. Ms Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in "removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment" of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. She added: "Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls." Do you think abortion should be decriminalised? Take our poll below. If you can't see it, click here But Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who said she believes safe and legal abortions are part of female healthcare, earlier branded the amendments "unnecessary" and "dangerous". Ms Mahmood, who will not be present for Tuesday's vote due to being away on Government business, said in a letter to constituents: "It is hard to see these measures as anything other than extreme." She continued: "I oppose extending abortions up until the point of birth beyond the exemptions that currently exist, as doing so would not only be unnecessary but dangerous. "I am deeply concerned to see these measures being progressed in the name of women's rights, when the potential physical and mental impacts on women would be so devastating." According to latest data, there were 252,122 abortions reported in England and Wales in 2022, the highest figure on record. MPs were given a free vote - meaning they were not required to vote along party lines. Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones told MPs the Government is neutral. She said: "If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended." The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) said the vote is a "landmark moment for women's rights". Chief executive Heidi Stewart said: "This is a landmark moment for women's rights in this country and the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed. "There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law. "This is a hard won victory, and we thank all those who have campaigned alongside us, and in particular those women, like Nicola Packer, who have spoken out about their traumatic experiences in the hope of achieving the change parliament has delivered today."
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
'Angry' MSP calls for compromise with SFA and SPFL over 'skulduggery'
He called for compromise from both sides so that a long-running dispute which has now raged for 15 years can be settled and change achieved which enables promising players to flourish at elite professional clubs and kids who fail to make it in the paid ranks to remain involved in the sport. The Scottish Conservatives politician was speaking following a meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport committee at Holyrood which heard evidence from Nick Hobbs of the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, Scott Robertson of RealGrassroots and Mahesh Madlani and Alex Waksman of Gunnercooke. RealGrassroots and the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland made complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) back in December about four SFA and SPFL statutes which they alleged violated UK competition law and potentially constituted the economic exploitation of children. Read more: The CMA wrote to the SFA and SPFL in March reminding them of their obligations to comply with competition law and recommending they assess their practices. Whittle, while expressing his concern about the disputed 'no poach', 'no approach', 'unilateral extension' and 'development contribution' rules, admitted that he would now like to see the two factions reach agreement which benefitted the Scottish game. Hobbs, the head of investigations with the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, alleged the Wellbeing Panel which was set up to determine if players in the CAS set-up could be released from a controversial two year registration which they sign when they turn 15 acted in the interest of the clubs not children. 'The Wellbeing Panel is a really good example of the kind of attitude that underpins all of this,' he told the committee. 'On the surface, it looks and sounds like a very positive mechanism for facilitating that movement between the clubs where necessary. 'But when we met with the SFA we asked, 'In what circumstances would you envisage a wellbeing panel would refuse permission for a child to move from one club to another'. They weren't able to tell us. That strongly suggests to me that the wellbeing panel exists not as a mechanism to facilitate that movement, but as an obstacle to prevent it from happening. 'Children will tend not to raise complaints when there are significant administrative processes that they have to go through and barriers that they have to jump over. I think The Wellbeing Panel is designed to restrict movement between clubs rather than facilitate it. 'The underlying issue here, and it always has been, is that the clubs principally view these children as economic assets and have rules and processes in place which allow them to be monetised. That SFA has made rules which are in the interests of clubs and not of the children.' (Image: SNS Group) Whittle, who won European Championship and Commonwealth Games medals and competed in the Olympics during his running career, expressed hope that Ian Maxwell, SFA chief executive, and Neil Doncaster, his SPFL counterpart, would address the accusations in person when they are called in front of the committee following the Scottish parliament's summer recess. However, he revealed that he has two grandchildren who are members of the CAS system and stressed that their experiences did not tally with the evidence which had been given. He said, 'The changes which have been made to the unilateral extension rule are an adequate compromise if they're actually applied properly. The devil's in the detail here. The reality is that some do it properly, some don't. So I would like to see the application of the rule tightened up rather than the rule changed. The rule is not a problem. The application of the rule is where we need to start looking. 'There are some significant issues which need to be tackled. I have spoken to Mr Maxwell about this in a meeting we had at the SFA offices about six weeks ago. I was equally upset in that meeting as I was today. The 'no approach' rule, for example, doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. What nonsense is that? That's restrictive to everybody. 'But that's not getting to the nub of what the problem is. That's why I was getting so frustrated, because this is not getting us to where we need to be. We need to start with a blank bit of paper and say, 'What do we want?' We want a system here where we bring kids in at one level and they have the ability to route map all the way through to international level. 'But along the way there are other stations where their talent can be utilised, even if that's just playing five-a-side football with their pals. That's not happening at the moment. There's lots of things we could be doing and should be doing that would make it much better.' Read more: He added, 'I'm not optimistic the change that is needed can be achieved. If you get two sides so entrenched, it's very difficult to find compromise. My problem is this is a real grassroots issue, but all we heard from were lawyers. You're never going to get a compromise out of that. 'The SFA and SPFL will always be on the defensive if lawyers are involved. If it's a legal problem, deal with it in the courts. They kept saying, 'They're breaching this, they're breaching that'. But they've proved nothing. 'Some of the things they were saying in there did not reflect my experiences. I've got a couple of grandkids who are in the Club Academy Scotland system. One moved from a smaller club to a bigger club as well. I never saw any problems. Don't get me wrong, there are problems. If you've got 2,700 kids and you've got all these clubs, you know there is some skulduggery going on. 'But as it's not just in Scottish football where there are problems. In my sport, in track and field, if you move to a club without it being okayed you get a nine month ban. You need to have extenuating circumstances. The clubs have to agree or Scottish Athletics have to say, 'You're allowed'.' Whittle continued, 'I am quite frustrated. I think the SFA and the SPFL have got questions to answer here. But I heard a lot of conflated evidence here today which I was actually quite angry about. 'We need to get the two sides in the room with the same objective. We all have the same objective. We want to get all the kids to play football. We want all levels of football to be at their best. We want Scotland to win the World Cup. That's not going to happen obviously, but that's what we want. At the moment, the system is not allowing that to happen.' The SFA and SPFL were both approached for comment. Back in March, an SFA spokesperson said, 'We have been in dialogue with the CMA and will continue to monitor our policies and procedures in line with FIFA regulations.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
MPs have opened the door to infanticide
Well, it's hello to prenatal infanticide now that Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill has passed the Commons after all of two hours' debate with 379 MPs voting in favour. Can we get our heads round what that means? Nothing a woman does in relation to her own pregnancy can make her liable to prosecution. At the same age of gestation when premature babies are admitted to neonatal wards with a very good chance of survival, less fortunate foetuses can be killed with impunity by their own mothers. So anyone like Carla Foster, who aborted her baby Lily at 32 weeks' gestation, will now get off free. There are, in other words, no sanctions for those who kill a foetus at any time right up to birth, so long as it's your own foetus you're killing. Are we meant to think that women in these situations are always desperate, never motivated by malice, never out for revenge, never callous or cruel or casual about unborn life? Are we, in short, denying women moral responsibility for their actions? Are we meant to think that women in these situations are always desperate, never motivated by malice, never out for revenge, never callous or cruel or casual about unborn life? Are we, in short, denying women moral responsibility for their actions? Looks like it to me. Can we remind ourselves of the main reason we're in this position? It's a Covid thing, obviously. Prior to the pandemic, women had to turn up to a clinic or surgery to obtain abortifacients and there it was possible for a reasonably experienced midwife or nurse to assess the stage of gestation – if you were over six months' pregnant, it'd be obvious, probably at a glance. But when Covid meant travelling to clinics was tricky, the Conservative government allowed for abortion pills to be prescribed remotely and sent by post. It's just a matter of the woman's word about how far advanced the pregnancy is; no one can check. And that's how Carla Foster got her pills; she didn't tell the truth about the stage of gestation she was at. The reintroduction of in-person appointments would have done away with the main way of procuring the abortifacients for this dangerous procedure – and that was the gist of another amendment by the Tory Caroline Johnson, but the same number of MPs who voted for impunity for killing viable foetuses voted against that one. Let's also remind ourselves how abortion pills work: the first is a progesterone blocker, which breaks down the lining of the uterus to kill the foetus; the second induces labour. So if the foetus is lucky enough to survive the first pill, it could be born alive thanks to the second. What are the chances it might be rushed to a neonatal ward? Nil, wouldn't you say? And let's not deceive ourselves about the distress of the foetus in these circumstances. You can get foetal stress responses earlier than 24 weeks (one reason why the abortion time limit should be pushed back); when surgery is performed on wanted foetuses between 20-26 weeks' gestation they are routinely given the benefit of pain relief. The foetus dying in the womb when abortifacients intended for use up to ten weeks' gestation are used at six months will suffer… there is no avoiding that reality. What gets me about all this is not just the infantilising of women, who are moral agents in all this (unless they're being coerced, which is certainly a possibility in this unscrutinised, unchallengeable situation); it's the cognitive dissonance. It's the case in every abortion that a foetus who in one scenario gets a lovely picture taken of its little fingers and toes at the 12-week ultrasound, can in another, be done away with in the course of 'abortion healthcare'. But it's the same entity. A foetus doesn't become human just because it's wanted, you know; it is what it is, a prenatal human being. It doesn't spring into being as a baby because that's what its mother calls it. And if that's true of the foetus in the first trimester – the average cut off point for most legal abortions in Europe – it's even more obviously the case for the foetus from six to nine months' gestation. If it looks like a baby, reacts like a baby, feels pain like a baby, then you know, it might be worth considering the possibility that it is a baby, just one that hasn't had the chance to be born. It's sentient all right, and viable given proper care. But somehow the MPs who blithely signed away the right to protection under the law for these unfortunates can't see that the mother is not the only life in the balance here. And giving impunity for women who terminate late term pregnancies can only make this grisly scenario more likely. What's needed in fact, is for a tightening of the abortion laws, not making them meaningless. It's legal to abort up to six months' gestation…which is ridiculous given, as mentioned earlier, foetal rates of survival in neonatal wards. I'd at least halve it to 12 weeks with only medical emergencies justifying later abortions. As for Tonia's insistence that the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – exceptions to which were made in the 1967 abortion act – is being 'used against vulnerable women and girls', well, it covers all sorts of offences, including grievous bodily harm, and there's no sign of that going out of fashion. My own response to this shaming, repugnant development would be to scrutinise the list of the MPs who voted for this grisly amendment, and if they include your constituency MP, I'd say vote for anyone, literally anyone, else at the next election.
