The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be taking part remotely. I remind the Committee that unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of Members who tabled them.
Clause 1: Assisted dying
Amendment 35
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to all the other amendments listed in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who, having assiduously attended our sessions on the Bill thus far, as all will have noticed, deeply regrets that he cannot be present with us today.
Our discussions to date have focused overwhelmingly on risk, and I do not for one moment dispute the necessity and the value of that. I will return to how best we can manage those risks later in my remarks. However, let us not forget that we are not pioneers. Thirty countries, states or jurisdictions across the world have already introduced assisted dying. The first did so over 80 years ago; there has been a steady stream this century and, hot off the press, just two days ago, an assisted dying Bill for the Channel Island of Jersey passed its First Reading by a two to one majority and is expected to pass into law next month. It is therefore at the very least equally important that we do not just focus on risk but lean on the well-established experience of others when considering the critically sensitive matter before us, which we know from serious studies carries overwhelming public support.
For my part, I have been exposing myself to the Australian experience, with considerable help from senior practitioners, for which I am most grateful. Without exception, those to whom I have been exposed come over as deeply caring and enormously considered. What I have learned from them, and from the copious data that is available, is reflected in the amendments before your Lordships today. Much that I have discovered has been surprising as well as enlightening. First, applications for assistance in Australia are not automatically accepted; something like one-third are turned down. Secondly, around 75% of those seeking assisted dying have cancer, and somewhere between 75% and 90% of all those who come forward are already in receipt of palliative care and are more motivated by their distress and misery than by their pain. Although I completely agree with all noble Lords who have stressed how vital it is to have effective, universally available palliative care, it is clear that it is not sufficient for many experiencing truly horrific medical conditions.
For those who have not read it, I commend Jonathan Dimbleby’s moving account in a recent New Statesman of his brother Nicholas’s harrowing final days. Nicholas had fallen victim to motor neurone disease. It became impossible for him to take solid food without choking. He then had a tube inserted into his stomach, through which he had to feed himself. Nicholas became increasingly hard to understand. He was barely able to move. He lost control of his bodily functions. He was often frightened and sometimes terrified. He gasped in vain for breath. Nicholas Dimbleby, finally and mercifully, died in February of 2024. Other UK practitioners I have met recently, simply by chance, have shared with me equally horrific accounts of deaths that they have witnessed in the ordinary course of their work.
Such experiences must explain why, in Australia, although around 10% to 15% of those seeking an assisted death apply some months in advance of their anticipated need, a significant proportion wait until their suffering is unbearable. As a result, around 25% of applicants die within nine days of their first request—I repeat, 25% of applicants die within nine days of their first request. A further 25% die within 10 to 19 days. Thus, in Australia, around 50% of applicants die within 19 days of their first request. The leading Australian practitioners who have advised me insist that sheer misery is the primary determining motivation of individuals seeking assisted dying. Further to illuminate the complexities of the process, around one-third of those who ask for and are given the death potion do not take it and choose to die a natural death.
Lord Birt (CB)
No, I am sorry—I have an argument to put; I am not going to take any interruptions.
Furthermore, one of Australia’s most senior and experienced practitioners tells me that, although in theory it must be a risk, she herself has never experienced a single example of coercion. On the contrary, she says, she has on occasions experienced the very opposite: loved ones understandably pressing someone who wants assisted dying not to embark on that course of action. Overwhelmingly, her experience is of applicants who know their own minds and are perfectly able to make a considered decision.
From all my discussions, I have concluded firmly that if this Bill passes into law, it is vital that the processes are based on day-to-day realities, as well as risk, and work efficiently and sensitively for any individual of firm and settled mind coming forward in a state of deep distress. We need more flexibility in the timelines of the process than the present Bill allows and a fit-for-purpose organisational focus that delivers promptly and humanely for individuals in severe need.
In our amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I propose three key measures. The first is to create a new organisation, the assisted dying help service, to enable the individual easily to navigate the complex process set out in this Bill, which in essence we retain. The second is to ensure that the assisted dying process is expeditious and, when conditions demand it, flexible. The third is that the commissioner acts solely as a regulator, with oversight but without any delivery responsibility.
The process currently set out in the Bill involves a 10-stage process, with three separate medical consultations with three different doctors, a confirmatory panel and two periods of reflection, the first of seven days and the second of 14 days, the latter of which can be shortened. Absent a bespoke organisational focus, this process in a stressed NHS could take a wholly inappropriate and disproportionate period of time. Hence our proposal is that we adopt a notion present in many jurisdictions of a purpose-built organisation—an assisted dying help service—that would provide a personal navigator to take the dying person and their loved ones through the whole complex process, providing introductions, keeping to timelines and piloting the individual through their final challenging and traumatic journey. Our amendments also propose appropriate flexibility, at every stage, with safeguards for doctors to act with urgency if the individual’s condition demands it.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I thought we were taking the remote contributors first. If we are not, since there are amendments from my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough to which I have attached my name—he is unable to be here today; he sends his apologies and has asked me to speak to his amendments—I will speak to Amendments 223A, 223B, 223C, 495A, 771ZZA and 771ZA. For the avoidance of doubt, I am perfectly happy to take any interventions, if anybody wants to ask me any questions, if anything I am saying is not clear or if anyone wants to challenge my arguments.
The primary reason for these amendments, as was ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is that the Bill does not really give the patient choice. It is designed to preference one option—that of seeking assisted suicide—rather than to help the patient navigate all the options that may be available to them.
There were limits on the way my noble friend could table his amendments. The advice that we received was that any amendments requiring a personal navigator to help secure or facilitate access to palliative, hospice or other end-of-life care, as an end in itself, were out of scope because the Bill’s collective purpose is provision for assisted suicide, not the wider delivery or co-ordination of end-of-life care. So amendments were admissible only where consideration of alternatives were explicitly tied to eligibility for or progression within the assisted suicide process. If anyone has any criticisms at this stage of the way that my noble friend’s amendments are drafted, I say that they are drafted in such a way as to fit with the advice that we received, so I will be perfectly happy to take criticisms of the drafting on the chin.
I start with a point that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, acknowledged in his opening remarks. He said that it was of great importance that there is universally available palliative care. He went on to say that, in his experience of talking to people, even where that palliative care was available, it did not always do the job that the person required it to. However, he skated over the fact that high-quality palliative care is not universally available. In the debates that we have had so far, to which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred, many of us have thought that, if high-quality palliative care is not available as part of the choice that you face, seeking assisted suicide is not the result of a proper, freely reached choice, because you do not have all the range of things in front of you. I think I am right in saying that, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was tested on that, he accepted that you have to make your decision based on the choices that are actually available to you. Many of us think we should actually be trying to make sure that everyone has access to that high-quality palliative care and understanding that should be part of this process.
The point of the amendments that we have tabled is to try to ensure that this navigator does not just have a conversation at the beginning; if you seek palliative care and it is not available to you in the normal course of events, this person could help you seek that, rather than being able only to help you seek assisted suicide. They can help you get the full range of choices that you might wish were available to you because, if they were, you might make a different choice. So that is the purpose of the amendments.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
This is a point of clarification about access to high-quality palliative care. It should also be about timely access, because we know that, even in the parts of the country where high-quality palliative care exists, around 100,000 people do not get it at a time that would amplify it and ensure that they get the maximum benefits.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful for that intervention; it is a very good point. The importance of it is emphasised by one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made in his opening remarks: that many people do not seek to make decisions on these matters until quite late in the process. If you were facing considerable pain as a result of your medical situation, not only might you not think about assisted suicide early on but, if it not available in your area, you may not have sought high-quality palliative care early enough. Again, that needs to be available at pace, as well as the choice of assisted suicide.
The second reason why I think these amendments are important is this. I do not know whether I am the only noble Lord to have thought this, but it does seem odd that what we are, or the noble Lord is, proposing here is a personalised service, I presume funded by the taxpayer—the noble Lord nods his assent—which would support somebody in a very personal, individual way to seek one particular outcome. But as far as I am aware, unless something happens in the National Health Service that I am not aware of, we do not offer a personal navigator to help somebody with their journey through seeking medical treatment that will actually help them live and live well, and it just seems to me a slightly odd sense of priorities that we are proposing to put in place a service that is only available to help somebody die.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend could think a little bit about the money involved in this. I am sorry—it sounds a bit odd, but I do feel very strongly that we ought to talk about how much all this is going to cost and where that money is coming from. In the very unsatisfactory answers from the Minister, who gave the opinions earlier on in previous arrangements, I asked directly whether she would assure the House that this money was additional money, rather than money that would otherwise come from the National Health Service. I wonder whether my noble friend would think to himself about the extra cost that this would mean. Where would it come from, and why are we not spending it on a lively attitude, which is to help people when they are ill with better palliative care, instead of going in for this death concept?
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments, and he is right: we had an extensive exchange on this subject on a previous Friday, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if my interpretation of what one of her ministerial colleagues said was incorrect, but it was very clear when I asked whether the Government were going to fund anything in the Bill. The Minister confirmed that, if Parliament were to choose to pass the Bill, the Government would indeed fund it and make sure it could be delivered. But when I asked the Minister whether that funding would be extra funding from the Treasury or would be taken from other parts of the public services—I think this was in the context of the extensive debate we had on the proposals on the court system by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—it was made very clear that that assurance was not given. I am afraid that the only conclusion I could come to, which was not challenged by the Minister—if she thinks I have got it wrong, she is welcome to intervene—was that the money would come from other parts of the public services.
I have to say for myself that, if this assisted dying navigator proposal were to be funded by taking money away from NHS services to pay for it, I think people would find that quite extraordinary. I personally would find it indefensible that we were, again, taking money away from services to help people live to pay for a service to help them die. That would show a very odd sense of priorities. When the Minister responds, because she is the only one who can answer this question, not the sponsor of the Bill, because he is not, as far as I am aware, responsible for His Majesty’s Treasury, I hope she can tell us—
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I think I heard my noble friend say that NHS resources should be used just to help people live. Of course, we would all agree that is a very important thing, but surely palliative care is all about helping people to die comfortably, which I think we all believe in as well. Given that, maybe my noble friend would agree that helping people to die comfortably, such as through palliative care, is a very good way to spend NHS resources as well.
Lord Harper (Con)
I agree that palliative care is a very good way to spend NHS resources, to help people live the rest of their lives in as comfortable a way as possible; it is not about accelerating their demise. That is a fundamentally different thing. In the exchange towards the end of our debate last week between my noble friend Lord Markham and my noble friend Lady Finlay about what palliative care is and is not, we had that, and I think it came out very clearly.
I do not wish to overstep the time available to me. The purpose of the amendments is to challenge some of the premises of the proposal set out by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I hope I have set out some of the concerns that we have, and I hope that the House will support the amendments I have supported on the Order Paper.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Birt was, of course, perfectly entitled to refuse my attempt to intervene in his speech. I am, however, disappointed that he chose to defy the determination of this House that we should not have repeated Second Reading speeches. Every one of us here can stand up and make a Second Reading speech on any of these amendments if we defy that determination, and I hope that he will not do it again. I am sure it was a misunderstanding on his part about the way in which he was able to move his amendment.
As to his amendment, I am afraid that I am suspicious about his group of amendments, and I think he gave the game away in the way in which he later turned to and referred to them. It is clear that he is very keen on there being a more extensive provision for assisted suicide—that people far beyond the scope of the noble and learned Lord’s Bill should be able to claim and achieve assisted suicide. Some of his amendments I agree with—I would love to see better care for people who are facing the end of their lives—but behind his amendments is a death service. As the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Harper, said, what he is providing is a way to death, not a way to enjoy and make the most of the rest of your life. I would urge noble Lords not to support these amendments, because I regret that their motivation is not even consistent with that of the sponsor of the Bill.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I speak specifically against Amendment 771, which would require the Secretary of State to establish an assisted dying help service as part of the National Health Service. I believe that that is a conceptually misplaced proposition in that, if we cast our minds back to last Friday, it was completely evident that the sponsor of the Bill does not intend that only in cases of unbearable pain or suffering would a person be eligible for the assisted dying service. Instead, concerns about your finances or being a burden on your family would be defined as legitimate bases for making the choice to opt for an assisted death.
It is not the proper function of a national health service to deal with financial burdens or pressures on people’s families in that way: that is a category mistake. Indeed, the founding charter for the NHS, the National Health Service Act 1946, is quite clear, and all successive health Acts have laid out the purpose of the NHS, which is
“to promote the establishment … of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.
Assisted dying does not fall within the scope of that purpose. In fact, I think that must be evident indeed to the drafters of the Bill, because somewhat camouflaged at Clause 41(4) is the suggestion that, by regulations, that founding charter for the National Health Service could be amended to include assisted dying. They reference the fact that change is probably required to the most recent iteration, the 2006 Act, to bring that about. I do not think it can be said legitimately that this is a part of the purpose of the National Health Service, and it is unnecessary in practice, organisationally.
Just because doctors, like lawyers and social workers, are proposed to be involved in this, it does not mean it is inherently part of the National Health Service. Doctors do DWP assessments, but that does not mean the National Health Service runs the benefits system. Doctors are involved in driving licence assessments, but that does not mean the National Health Service runs the DVLA. Doctors are involved in the criminal justice system as forensic medical examiners, but that does not mean the NHS needs to run the court system.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that removing life support is not part of the health service?
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
As the noble Lord will well know, the ethical principle of the doctrine of double effect is in place there. There is no doctrine of double effect associated with assisted dying; it is a completely different ethical principle. In fact, part of the reason why it would be dangerous to include assisted dying in the National Health Service is because it risks undermining the very trust that people have in their clinicians.
It increases the risk of what you might call self-coercion in the name of altruism. People thinking that they are reducing not only the burden on their families but on the NHS from an earlier death is a genuine risk. We saw that, frankly, during Covid, when the slogan, “Protect the NHS”, was used. A number of us were opposed to that, fearing it would put people off coming forward for needed care, which is precisely what happened. The idea that an NHS-branded assisted dying service might, at least in people’s minds, come to be associated with helping to protect the NHS by virtue of choosing an earlier death blurs the lines, which we should be careful to avoid.
Fundamentally, it is unwise to include assisted dying in the National Health Service because it blurs the distinction between palliative care and what is proposed in the Bill. As we have just heard from the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Deben, many of us have concerns that the choice on offer will not be a genuine choice if palliative care is not available, and I am afraid the Government have been less than forthcoming as to what they envisage palliative care services looking like over the coming years.
Two months ago, I asked the Government a very straightforward Written Question: can they tell us whether the palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, which they are going to publish, will quantify the incremental funding needed to make sure that everybody who would benefit from specialist palliative care would get it? I did not get an Answer to that straightforward Question before this House debated the palliative care elements of the Bill. This week, I received a two-sentence response—it was not an Answer —which said:
“The Government is developing a Palliative Care and End of Life Care Modern Service Framework for England. I refer the Noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement … on 24 November”.
That was the Answer to the Question: will the Government’s framework specify the funding gap, identify funding to meet it, and ensure that people have access to care? On that basis, we are entitled to conclude that they probably do not intend to move in that direction. Therefore, the concerns about having an assisted dying service as part of the National Health Service, when palliative care needs go unaddressed, are all the more acute.
For those three reasons—the fact that the proposal is conceptually misjudged, organisationally unnecessary and inherently risky—I oppose the proposition that assisted dying should be part of the NHS.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to Amendment 771ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, which would prevent the assisted dying service being part of the NHS. I agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Stevens.
Integration into mainstream healthcare appears to normalise the practice and lower barriers to the use of assisted dying. International evidence is instructive—where it is embedded within publicly funded healthcare systems, such as in Canada and the Netherlands, uptake rises steadily over time and eligibility criteria broaden. As we know, in some jurisdictions it is available to minors, people with non-terminal conditions, psychiatric diagnoses, and even people with learning disabilities and autism, as my own published research on the Netherlands has shown.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Stevens that assisted dying is not a treatment. That is a further reason why it should never become part of the National Health Service. The substances proposed to be used neither treat nor prevent disease; they fall outside the legal definition of a medicinal product. The drug regimens proposed are unlicensed, have not undergone appropriate clinical trials and lack international consensus. The drugs that have been used more widely and successfully to provide the much-lauded pain-free and quick death, such as in Switzerland, are not even available or licensed for human use in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Birt seems to seek to introduce similar criteria as are used in Switzerland, and not just for terminal illness—he spoke about suffering, pain, and conditions that are not eligible under the Bill. In Switzerland, non-profit organisations such as Dignitas operate within that narrow but deliberate legal space created by Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, which states that assisted suicide is punishable only when carried out for selfish motives. That means that if it is provided purely out of compassion, with no personal gain, it is not a criminal offence, enabling Dignitas and other similar non-profit organisations to function lawfully so long as they can demonstrate altruistic intent and ensure that the individual is acting autonomously.
Interestingly, Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, contained only one clause—I think just one sentence—when it became law in 1942. One wonders whether the smoke and mirrors of the 59 clauses in the Bill and the various proposed new clauses from my noble friend Lord Birt disguise a similar intent. The potential changes and development of the proposals before us today are concerning. Indeed, if something as straightforward as is provided in Switzerland is intended, I do not understand why it was not proposed in the first place. We do not want this in the National Health Service.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, cited Australia. I am sure that he is aware that no Australian jurisdiction is recognised as one of the 10 comparable jurisdictions in the Bill’s eligibility criteria and the Government’s impact assessment. The most comparable are New Zealand and the United States. This discussion was resolved in our Select Committee by receiving evidence from New Zealand. We need to be consistent and mindful of the Government’s impact assessment and ensure that our comments align with it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, with his vast experience, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, with hers.
My point is a simple one, which, as a lawyer, has been troubling me for a long time: conflict of interest. There is an internal conflict of interest here within the health service. Are you going to spend the money on this or on palliative care? Will it affect decision-making by medical practitioners? I have talked to a number of them—one of them is a member of my family; I will not embarrass them by saying more—and know that it is a matter of real concern, because this is not treatment, but something quite different.
We do not have to have non-medical things such as, as we have heard, Department for Work and Pensions assessments done under the NHS label. That is contrary to everything the NHS stands for. There would be a conflict of interest within any trust that funds and administers this as to where the money goes. Will it be given more money, specifically? Will it be limited?
The obvious overseeing Secretary of State for this is the Secretary of State for Justice, because you are going to be dealing with the administration of life and death, not simply trying to cure people and save them from death. It is quite different. You are saying, “You can die, and we are satisfied that there are no bad people around you who are encouraging you to opt for this course”. Then there will be the selection and management of the panels, which will be performing a quasi-judicial function, like other assessment panels.
The obvious place for this, which would remove, or at least limit and reduce, the risks within the health service, would be a separate, specific budget given to the Ministry of Justice. We would then know what is being spent. Otherwise, the XYZ trust will say, “Gosh, what do we take this from?” I will not give emotive examples, but that is what will happen in practice, so we need to know that this is a specific service and that the country has said it will have hundreds of millions of pounds a year to run it, but that it will be on top of and ancillary to anything the ordinary health service provides to people who actually want to live, or at least live in comfort.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Is it not also the case, if we are looking at assisted dying much more from a justice prism, that one of the broader, important elements to establish, where death has occurred, is whether there has been any criminal action or intent, in terms of the administration but also in a situation where people coerce somebody to die? That is another reason why, if this is to happen, it should sit much more with the justice side of things than with the health side.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. That is why at the start, perhaps briefly and elliptically, I talked about bad agencies and people. That is not the health service’s primary role. It will happen from time to time. I know a medical professional —I mentioned this at Second Reading—who has a relative in charge of safeguarding in a major London trust. One of the concerns they have, and what they have to deal with from day to day, is families who are not all united in their support for an elderly and tiresome relative and would often, in fact, like them helped on their way. I will not say more, but I think the point is clear that this structural point is a major failing in the Bill.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who speaks from great experience and professional knowledge, made a very clear case about how the assisted dying navigator is quite outside the normal purposes of the National Health Service. I guess it could be described, in effect, as a form of advocacy. In the ancient world, the dead were carried across the River Styx by Charon. It seems that role would be performed by the navigator, because where is he navigating you to? It is to the River Styx; he is not trying to navigate you to anywhere else.
If that is included in the National Health Service, it would create a quite different purpose from the normal purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, described. I wonder, therefore, whether we should consider whether this actually amounts to the National Health Service trying to persuade people to accept assisted dying. If it does, and if you think of the vulnerability of the individual cases that so often will occur, could it be argued that it might become an institutionalised form of coercion?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I merely point out that this is not a choice between investing in palliative care or changing the law so that we have an assisted dying service. We need to do both. I am mindful of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, about the lack of response from the Department of Health and Social Care. It would be very good if some others of us could press for that, because it would be interesting to know how, when and how much the Government are going to invest in palliative care. Whatever we believe about assisted dying, we all fundamentally believe that palliative care needs more investment and should not be a postcode lottery.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to reflect on the equality implications of this suggestion of a special treatment service for those seeking assisted death. Following on from the previous contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, it seems to me that everybody would want, if they are a patient or for their loved ones, a personal, state-funded navigator. But maybe for care, those people on trolleys, waiting for operations, or trying to find their way into the care system would all say, “Can we all have one?” If we do not afford every patient in the country a personal navigator, is that not an unequal access to services? It seems a two-tier system, and one that I think the public would not approve of.
On another issue, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to detail the workforce demands that this service would require from the NHS, following on from the excellent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I note that the assisted dying help service—which, by the way, would be awarded significant regulatory powers by these amendments that would not be subject to approval by Parliament—would have the power to set training and qualifications for practitioners. That seems like a blank cheque. I would like to know what the skill set of a navigator would be and who decides that. In all seriousness, this whole new shadow service being set up, with its own qualification system and recruitment, is a bit worrying. We are not sure who they are going to be.
My final query is that I know that a lot of the Bill’s supporters are frustrated and have raised problems with some of the amendments that have been tabled on the basis that they would somehow create bureaucratic, preventive barriers to people who genuinely want to afford themselves an assisted dying service. In other words, there is an attempt to overengineer the process. Therefore, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on this creative attempt at cutting red tape. However, on these amendments, we all know that mandated timelines can mean shortcuts that could make the process unsafe. Could he comment on that?
Speed and process-driven decision-making are risky in any instance but, where careful assistance and safeguarding are contested, it seems rather dangerous that panels would have to decide within two days of referral, even sitting over the weekend or bank holidays to make decisions. By the way, I think we should apply that to everyone in the NHS: they should do operations and doctors’ surgeries should be open over weekends and bank holidays. I wish the courts would sit over bank holidays and weekends, because then we would not have to get rid of jury trials, allegedly. That would mean that a referral on a Friday evening would have to be decided by a Monday. How would a panel have time to investigate and read everything thoroughly? Surely it would just end up skimming things.
I also really worry about the reflection period being cut to 24 hours, when experts warn that initial depression after diagnosis, which is completely understandable, might well be temporary, treatable and certainly remedial. It could last a few weeks but then be replaced with a more positive attitude. In fact, the CEO of Mind told the Lords Select Committee that they have
“gone to the brink, have come back and have then been able to say three or six months later, ‘I’m so glad that that did not happen’”.
All I am saying is that saying, “Oh we’re being really efficient; we’re going to make sure that your reflection is cut to 24 hours so that you can get what you want”, might well mean that you do not get what you would have wanted if you had had a bit longer to reflect.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, there is an unreality about this debate that gives rise to a question for the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister. The unreality is this: the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has made the case for his amendments, and my noble friend Lord Harper and others have made the case against them, but there is hung on this whole debate an assumption that the NHS will deliver assisted dying. I remind the Committee that there is no guarantee of that in the Bill.
If noble Lords would kindly turn to Clause 41(4), they will see that the only reference to the National Health Service is:
“Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued”,
et cetera. That is the only reference to the NHS in the Bill. We do not know whether the NHS will or will not deliver assisted dying services. It is an extraordinary weakness in the Bill.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
The noble Lord and I sat on the Select Committee on the Bill. He may recall that I pressed the Minister specifically on this point: to clarify who would be delivering an assisted dying service in this country should the Bill be accepted. Only after a number of questions did the Minister acknowledge that it was the Government’s intention that the NHS would commission an assisted dying service. He could not clarify or confirm whether it would be delivered by the NHS, the private sector, the voluntary sector or charitable organisations and, if it was the private sector, whether it would be allowed to generate any profit. We are still unclear. It is very challenging to us, and I hope the Minister in her response might be able to give us further clarity on that important point.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, is quite correct. That is exactly what happened in the Select Committee. For my sins, I sit on a surfeit of committees, including the Delegated Powers Committee, which drew attention to this very deficit in the Bill. So the question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is: since the Minister was questioned in the Select Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in the weeks that have followed, has he had any guarantee from the Government that they will ensure that the Secretary of State by regulation ensures that the NHS delivers voluntary assisted dying services? When the Minister replies to the debate, can she cast some light on this matter so that we know whether or not the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has put forward and my noble friend has opposed really has any basis in reality?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, hit every nail on the head of everything that is wrong with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I shall speak to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Lord Harper, and I have signed some of them. I have done so because the Bill as drafted, and as now proposed to be amended by the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick, promises choice while quietly engineering speed, centralisation and a single-minded pathway to assisted death. That is not a neutral design choice. It reshapes incentives, shifts resources and narrows real options for people at the end of life.
I will give three short examples of why the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, are wrong, and end with a direct challenge to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
First, the amendments would turn life and death decisions into a fast-track process. From first declaration to possible assistance, the clock can run down to 30 days, or as few as 18 days if death is deemed imminent. Panels must decide within 48 hours of referral. Reports are forced within 24 hours. Reflection periods can be cut to 24 hours. That is extraordinary. Courts take months to resolve urgent life issues. Prognoses measured in months are notoriously unreliable. Rushing assessments in this way risks premature deaths, misdiagnoses and inadequate exploration of reversible causes of despair. My noble friends’ amendments, including the ones that I have signed, push back against that compression.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, the assisted dying help service and the personal navigator create an asymmetric system. The navigator is designed to shepherd people quickly through the assisted dying pathway. There is no equivalent statutory guarantee that a person will get timely access to palliative care, hospice support, social services or mental health interventions. In practice, a patient could reach assisted death faster than they could gain access to pain control, a care package, meaningful social intervention or, as the noble Baroness said, a GP appointment these days. That is a perverse allocation of scarce resources and a distortion of choice. When one option is actively facilitated and the others are not, choice becomes a funnel.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
I apologise to the Committee for not being fully engaged today. I have appointments elsewhere, and my father’s funeral was yesterday. I remember during the Covid period Ministers stood behind a sign reading “Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives”. My real concern now with the thought of a navigator that has only one direction is that will it be—I know it sounds rather flippant—“Save the NHS, choose a navigator, choose death”? That seems to be the chilling direction that the concept of a navigator and one choice only seems to be directing us towards.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I feel tempted to try to answer that very quickly. I too will be leaving the Committee before we get to a vote on this or at least some decision from the Minister about what the Minister is going to say. I have to say that this discussion about the cost of treatment is not a reasonable one. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, did not discuss this in his speech, but I think the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is overwhelmingly important because it is about the notion of our sensitivity in this situation.
There are many people who go to the health service who do not get treatment. It is not always a treatment. For years, I was pioneering in vitro fertilisation, which was not successful for a very long time. We got 16 babies worldwide in the first four years. There are now millions of happy families as a result, many of them in this House some of the time. The people in this House who opposed in vitro fertilisation—believe me, there were many of them—would probably have refused to accept assisted dying too. The fact of the matter is that the health service develops. It is not static. It changes depending on what the need is. In vitro fertilisation, instead of being an orphan subject, is now a major treatment funded by the health service. Unfortunately, it should be more funded, but we are getting a lot of success doing it in the way we are, and we will increase that.
It is also fair to point out that there are medical treatments developing all the time in the health service, which are not funded at the time when they are developed. Take cancer treatments, which are extremely expensive, very often with the most expensive drugs. Of course, we have to deal with the internal market in the health service, but we persuade the people who understand the need for healthcare, are faced with patients and have to treat them in the best way—
Lord Winston (Lab)
I will not give way. I will answer at the end. I have almost finished what I have to say.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a true argument. There are many examples. In my practice, probably about 60% of the time when people came to my clinic, and it was always true even when IVF was successful, I refused them treatment. I refused to treat them, not because there was no money or we could not afford to treat them, but because I thought the treatment would increase their distress because it was so unlikely to be helpful.
When that happens to people, it is a kind of death within them, but they have the great advantage that they can mourn that death and overcome it by doing other things. Unfortunately, in this situation, when people are dying in the way they are, often horribly, there is something that we need to try to do purely out of compassion.
Lord Markham (Con)
To build on that, I will put the financial numbers into context. The impact assessment has it down as £28 million; I believe that is 0.000175% of the NHS budget. It is right and proper that we decide how NHS resources are spent and in which direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. We make those decisions all the time—for example, whether we put more funding into cancer or other services. It is entirely appropriate.
One of the key phrases was, “It is our NHS”, and what do we know about assisted dying? That 70% of the public support it. Given that, surely it is entirely right that resources are spent in that way.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
The point that is being missed was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and it is the problem with what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was saying. Can the noble Lord respond to it? We are talking about what the aim of this is, but it is not a health aim. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke of better treatment for cancer and in vitro fertilisation. Are the noble Lords arguing that death is a health aim?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I apologise to my noble friend. The guidance of the House is that you cannot intervene on an intervention.
Lord Markham (Con)
Let me answer that, then I will be perfectly happy to be intervened on—
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt. If I am correct, the noble Lord can speak again, but he cannot intervene on an intervention.
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe I am answering the question. Once I have finished answering, the noble Lord can intervene on me and say what he would like to say. If he is willing to wait a few moments, that would be the appropriate point.
We spoke earlier about how palliative care is a way for people to choose to ease the way they die. I would say that assisted dying is also giving people the choice to die in a way they want to. In birth services, people have a birth plan. I remember going through this recently and there was a midwife who played a role very similar to that of a personal navigator, helping us talk about what sort of birth plan we wanted: whether we wanted a home birth and what we wanted to do about pain relief. It was very similar to many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, was talking about. The fundamental point here—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is free to intervene at any point now I have answered that—is that it is giving people choice and autonomy. I believe that choice in the way you wish to die and when you want to die, if it is certain that your diagnosis is that you will die within six months, is a fundamental choice and a health choice.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Part of the noble Lord’s argument is based on assisted suicide being so popular with the general public that 70% of people want it. If that is so, perhaps he can help me to understand why none of the parties in this House put in their manifesto that they want assisted dying?
Lord Markham (Con)
Given that I did not write any of the manifestos, I am not sure I can say. If I was writing them, it is something that I would probably put in. It is something that everyone agrees is one of personal choice, like many other issues, and of course that is why everyone has a free vote in this matter. It is undeniable that there is overwhelming public support for this and, as it is “our NHS”, it is entirely fitting that if it is the decision that money is spent in this way, it should be directed towards this service.
The question becomes one of what I believe the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick, are trying to do in their amendments, which is to take what we know is a complex system and make it as easy to navigate as possible. We know that it is a time of great distress. In many cases you have just been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and sometimes you will be told straightaway that you have only a few months to live, so automatically you are within the six months and it is something you want to move on quickly. It is entirely right and proper that you want to ensure that it then happens as efficiently as possible. That does not mean you do not want other services to happen as efficiently as possible in the NHS. It is not a binary choice between one and the other.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
The noble Lord has repeated on several occasions the fact of overwhelming public support for this. Does he agree that there are a lot of other areas in which opinion polling may show public support, but the job of this House is to ensure that the support is buttressed by legislation that is deliverable, is compassionate, respects the rights of all and is applicable across a range of different situations?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely. That is what these debates are all about: trying to find an approach that makes assisted dying tight and safe, safeguarding all sorts of vulnerable groups, but also navigable. I know that is what the sponsors of the Bill are trying to do and what the noble Lords are trying to do in this amendment. I commend the amendment for that reason. I do not think they are trying to be prescriptive. They are trying to start a conversation with the Bill’s sponsors that will go on between now and Report, which is an entirely constructive way to do it.
On how the service is best provided, I was on the Select Committee and it is one for the NHS to commission in the best way. Commissioning can use the NHS or voluntary services, and I think we would all agree that, in the hospice sector, voluntary services provide very well. It is wrong at this stage for us to try to be prescriptive in terms of a one-size-fits-all NHS provision. The main thing on these amendments is trying to get a constructive approach, which I am sure the Bill’s sponsors will pick up, to how we make this as simple as possible to use for those who are in the most distressing period of their lives, when they have less than six months to live and they want to die in a method of their choice and in the most comfortable way possible.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, of the 43 amendments in this group, 35 are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Birt. They propose a framework for a completely new process outside that already created by this defective Bill, requiring a service of both advice and assistance. This includes the provision of assisted suicide every day of the year, including public holidays, Christmas, Easter et cetera, from 8 am to 6 pm, unless the doctor is in the house where the drug is being administered, in which case he has to stay. As has been said, there is no impact assessment on the cost of this new service and it is a relevant matter. Concerns must arise, given the advice of the Health Secretary that there is already a lack of access to high-quality end-of-life care and that there are tightened finances within the NHS, which could add to the pressure faced by dying patients.
These amendments require a new service that must be part of the NHS. We have heard arguments against that, and I support them. They impose deadlines and create processes for enforcing those deadlines, which will provide assisted death at a time when the person who is terminally ill will, in many cases, struggle to access palliative care; they may even never be able to do so.
The assisted suicide service would take priority. There is no process, as has been said, for a personal guide to get palliative care or the necessary social care. Would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, be willing to accept amendments that would require palliative care treatment options to be available and accessible within similar structures and timeframes?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his practical ideas are very sensible, but I think that there is a much more fundamental problem that probably frustrates him. The Government are hiding from us what in fact they want to do on this Bill. I do not blame the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for this. We are being encouraged to pass a Bill that, as we have heard, will put enormous obligations on the health service’s budget and people, but we are being given no direction by the Government. Will they pay? Do they have the money? Do they have the trained staff to deal with it? While HMG hide behind this flawed Private Member’s Bill, noble Lords are being urged to legislate blind. It is not remotely acceptable or responsible for noble Lords to make life and death decisions when there is no clarity about the future intentions of the Government. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that this is a great idea, but who pays for it?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I apologise but I must remind noble Lords of the guidance of the House, which is that noble Lords should not summarise or repeat others at length. I know I try to find a different way to say this every week, and broadly speaking I fail. I also realise that noble Lords have spent a lot of time preparing their remarks, but it is my duty to remind them of the guidance of the House.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I love your Lordships’ House because it is the place where all this detail comes on to the Floor of the House. Debates like this, even though they are complicated and difficult, are always encouraging to people like me. The people involved in this, even though they take very different positions, I like a lot. I sat in the debate in June down the Corridor, and I heard lots of emotional stories on both sides of the debate, and good points and all that, but it did not have the level of detail that we are dealing with in this House. This is encouraging to me.
My life has been spent in the East End of London on housing estates, dealing with practical issues in a very grey area of the world and often, if I am honest, the dysfunctionality in practice and in detail of the NHS on housing estates. I have had to deal with the GP who is doing female circumcisions in his surgery that none of the systems had even noticed, and the GP who had bought a cheap fridge from B&Q and given out 10,000 illegal injections, and no one had noticed because there was lots of ideology about race that was preventing anyone from coming to terms with the detail of that.
My colleagues and I really got into the health system, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, knows, following the death of a young woman called Jean Vialls from cancer in appalling circumstances with a disabled mother, a mentally ill dad and two children sleeping in the same bed. The NHS systems, processes and machinery absolutely failed to deal with that stuff. We would not have built the Bromley by Bow Centre, which now has 55,000 patients—it is starting to operate across the country with a whole programme that I now lead—if it had not been for the noble Lord, who, as the then Secretary of State, intervened in a very serious practical matter following a senior-level inquiry at the London hospital and enabled us to build the first working model of an integrated health centre that tried to deal with this complexity.
The NHS, in my experience—I am dealing with it with colleagues across the country—is broken. It is in a great deal of difficulty, in my experience. Our GPs are overwhelmed by bureaucracy and a whole range of things, and they are excellent people. My point in saying this, because I come from the world of practicality—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene again but I invite the noble Lord to address the amendment directly.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I was just going to do that. I address the amendment because I worry that, while the amendment and the idea of a navigator seem very straightforward intellectually, I am trying to suggest that in the real practical world out there, when you engage with it, as my colleagues and I have done over the last 40 years, you see something quite different.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 287A, 287B and 771ZB. I call the noble Lord, Lord Birt, my noble friend. We went to the same school, although admittedly not at the same time. I am conscious that he has come at this with an approach of a lot of research, as he set out. The noble Lord knows that I disagree with him, but I understand why he is trying to speed up. However, I wonder whether he has taken account of evidence presented already. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about the CEO of Mind, but also Marie Curie spoke about this and indeed the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I am particularly thinking of the speeding up and that moment of reflection, which is really important. I think the noble Lord is already suggesting in his Amendment 771 that patients should be aware of their right to withdraw from the assistance process at any stage. There is quite a lot in here that sets out a framework that could be done through the NHS. I completely agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Mawson, have said: it worries me that, if this ends up in the NHS, it will accelerate in becoming a routine end of life. In my meetings with the Royal College of GPs, it has been clear that it does not want this to be part of the NHS and it would absolutely resist it being part of the NHS contract.
Lord Harper (Con)
On that point, and the point raised earlier about a conflict of interest, one of the problems if this is in the NHS is the money. The cost of the drugs to end someone’s life, according to the impact assessment, is £14.78, but the saving you would make from four months of healthcare not used would be £13,075, and anyone with any experience of NHS budgets knows that that contrast would inevitably drive people to being pointed towards assisted suicide.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I understand where my noble friend is going with that. I intend to come back to some aspects of this when we get into informed consent because I was somewhat struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, about declining to give treatment because he wanted people to, in effect, accept that they were dying—I think that is what he said, although I had better go back and check that because I do not want to misquote him. I have seen that myself; I saw it with my mother when doctors just had not treated her, and then when it came to it, when it was near the end, we had to fight to avoid even having a DNR on the ambulance so that she could die at home in a place of her choice. That is true patient autonomy—I am not trying to override that.
In terms of thinking through some of what the noble Lord has put forward in his propositions, others have already reflected on the concerns about working days and whether that is practical. I would be grateful to hear from both the sponsor and the Ministers about what assessment they have made of these amendments. I am also concerned about proposed new subsection (2)(g) in Amendment 771, about providing
“publicly available information on assisted dying”.
How does that vary from what is considered advertising, which is explicitly ruled out in other parts of the Bill?
The key point of my amendments links to this almost becoming its own service within the NHS. Various clauses start to remove powers from the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. This service would start to appoint the panels, and at the moment it is taking up all the training, licensing and all those different things. It is my understanding that this does not happen in the NHS today. What we actually get, and what I propose with my amendments, is that, for a start, we have a separate regulator through the Care Quality Commission, and that the General Medical Council undertakes the roles that it does for other parts of what happens in the NHS today. If the noble Lord, Lord Birt, brings this back on Report then I hope he will think more carefully about how to make this practicable, because I hope the Minister will say it is simply not operable, even if well-intentioned in what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has just started talking about the East End of London. It is important that noble Lords consider carefully not just the evidence that has been given to this House but evidence outside about the real concerns of people from BAME communities. It is evident that people in those communities seem particularly worried about this, and that has been communicated directly to this House through witnesses. Instead of not trusting the NHS as it is today to give treatment, imagine, as you go in and are unsure, your already overworked GP saying, “Here you go; here’s some information. Someone can hold your hand”. I worry that too many people would stay away from the NHS when they desperately needed treatment in other aspects of their lives, whether in addressing prostate cancer or the other rare cancers that we debated in the Chamber last week.
I remind noble Lords—I appreciate that this is probably the third time I have said this—that for me this comes back to the practical experience of when the NHS was left to deal with end-of-life care in certain ways. The Liverpool care pathway was so horrific that I cannot in any way see how it could be controlled if we were to adopt the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. We saw it go badly wrong, and I am pleased that Ministers eventually intervened. It took time, but it did happen.
On these regulations and other aspects of running this service, if we are going to have it, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst that it should be more of an MoJ focus. Inevitably, it has become a big health focus. It is not clear, from what noble Lords have set out in their proposals, how this interacts with the whole Wales situation. The Bill’s sponsors have, I think, about 12 officials from the Department of Health and Social Care working on the Bill, which is three or four times the number at the MoJ, so there should be some understanding of how this will work. I genuinely hope that the Minister will start to share that, so that this House can make informed choices as we consider such a significant change in what could be the future of our NHS.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, for answering much of what would have been in my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. In my 15 years in your Lordships’ House, it has been the usual practice to give way, but I recognise that noble Lords have the prerogative not to accept an intervention. But I find it surprising—and I have never known it before—that the noble Lord is now no longer in his place. That is not in accordance with the advice that the Chief Whip gave this morning that we should treat each other in this House with respect.
The only additional point I make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who clearly did amazing work on the creation of life—it was on the television as I grew up—and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who talked about the pathway that midwives give for the safe delivery of that created life, is that it is entirely different to talk about a situation where the state pays for and facilitates lethal drugs to enable a citizen to end their own life.
Looking at the amendment—
Lord Markham (Con)
If I may respond to the noble Baroness’s first point, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, who is not in his place either, mentioned that they had appointments that they needed to go to. I believe that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is not here now.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Well, I hope that he will write to me personally about this.
In relation to the evidence on which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is basing his argument, I was surprised that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the Australian non-comparable. Paragraph 8.4 of the impact assessment, on the delivery model, states that
“in most jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal it is provided through the healthcare system”,
so looking for international comparators is an unusual approach. The 30 jurisdictions that we keep hearing about include the Isle of Man, Tuscany in Italy, and only 13 of the 50 United States. This is not a wave that we must get with, as many progressive politicians like to say it is. Denmark considered this in 2024, and 16 out of 17 members of the Danish Council of Ethics voted against introducing assisted dying into their jurisdiction. Only yesterday, the French Senate decided not to go forward with legislation. This is in no way a progressive train that we need to get on.
My second point relates to the speed of these decisions for families. We know that the Bill is philosophically based on individual autonomy, which is anathema to many communities. For families to know that this was done within 18 days will only compound what we believe will be complicated grief. I am particularly concerned about how the speed of service will fit in with the increasing uncertainty of diagnoses for 18 to 25 year-olds because of the various positive effects of treatments for them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has admitted that there are, sadly, deficiencies in Clause 43 in relation to advertising. I do not think I am a cynic, but I am sorry to say that I can see a competition: “Can I get to 18 years and 18 days and be the first young person to meet that milestone?” We do not want a culture of speed in this process, limiting reflection.
Finally, maybe I am the only noble Lord sitting here without the benefits of the pre-legislative scrutiny of a consultation White Paper but, with many amendments, I am wondering how this service will fit together with a panel—or will it be a judge, or a judge with a couple of other members? That is the deficiency: in Committee, we are still trying to put right the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I do not know whether that is possible.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
The noble Baroness raised the issue of speed. It comes back to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Often in public policy issues, there is a trade-off between the speed of a decision and its quality. Sometimes when we short-circuit or fast-track decisions it can inevitably lead to a greater level of mistakes being made. But in a wide range of other public administration or public policy decisions, there is at least the advantage that if a mistake is made, there is the opportunity at a later stage to come back and correct it—to perhaps appeal, review or reverse it. Of course, the major problem with this is that if we fast-track things and it leads to a death that should not have occurred, we cannot bring the person back to life.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who said in response to an intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, that he perfectly acknowledged that we should have the safest possible system—I see that he is nodding now. I therefore find it very difficult to see how we get the safest possible system if these amendments go through and decisions are fast-tracked, inevitably leading to greater numbers of mistakes and shortcuts.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in introducing this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said that one of the reasons he tabled them was that the proposals in the Bill are potentially chaotic and prolonged. This group is in some ways something and nothing. The proposals make the case for a profound imbalance, with assisted death actively facilitated, accelerated and led through the dedicated service with speed. As my noble friend Lord Stevens said, this is not in scope for the NHS and NHS services, and we have to look at the NHS constitution. I ask the Minister whether, in the light of some of the proposals, there is a plan to rewrite the NHS constitution as well as the fundamental principles of the NHS, as read out by my noble friend.
The amendment’s structural conflict is between efficiency and caution. In responding, can the noble Lord, Lord Birt, explain how the clock will be stopped and by whom, and whether a request to shorten the process will trigger enhanced scrutiny? If so, how that will be done? Will all the assessments be face to face to improve the chances of detecting coercion to death? Will all the contacts with the navigator be recorded and audited so that one can be sure that the auditor is not acting in a profoundly subtle and coercive way?
The navigator seems to bypass a search for many things and, without the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, and others, I cannot see how that imbalance would be corrected. At least the imbalance is there, but Amendment 771 gets to the heart of the problem: it tries to make all of this a profound NHS responsibility. As we have heard, the NHS cannot cope. We have patients on extra beds in the middle of wards, seriously ill patients being looked after in corridors and patients sitting on plastic chairs waiting for a bed, sometimes dying on those plastic chairs.
The NHS is not the place to have a dignified death in a hospital setting in the lovely planned way that seems to be described and desired by some people. People are working themselves into the ground trying to manage their current workloads. As has been said, the workforce itself is completely on its knees. GPs are already overstretched. Evidence suggests that assisted dying would require around 30 hours for an individual case, yet many palliative care doctors and psychiatrists would opt out, therefore decreasing the pool. That is relevant to the way these amendments are put together.
I will respond to some of the points raised about whether the public want this. When the public are asked in polls what they understand about assisted dying, 52% say that it is a right to stop treatment. They already have that right. Nobody should be treated against their will, and they should be supported in that decision. Some 17% of people think that assisted dying is hospice care.
Lord Markham (Con)
In the spirit of helpfulness on public opinion and whether people understand the question, there are numerous surveys on this. A very clear one has the wording “Do you think doctors should be allowed to end the life of a terminally ill patient at their request?”, which was supported by 75% of 18 to 34 year-olds, 80% of 35 to 64 year-olds and 78% of those aged 65-plus. I do not think you could get a question clearer than that, or a level of public support greater than that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but I think we need to stay focused on the amendments in this group and not get diverted. That is what I am trying to do.
In terms of palliative care provision, I am extremely worried that the amendments put down to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, had to be limited because palliative care is repeatedly being deemed out of scope of the Bill. That is a major problem. We hear about bad deaths, but we know that actually, if clinicians act with urgency and have a 24 or 48-hour limit before they call for specialist palliative care intervention—so there is rapid intervention, with highly specialised knowledge—all of the outcome measures show an improvement, using things such as the IPOS scale and so on. Family reported outcomes can also improve. To view bad deaths as something that we should just leave and tolerate, and to say the only solution is the proposal in these amendments, does not recognise the reality of the services that are available already.
In introducing his amendments, the noble Lord quoted extensively from Australia and painted it as everything being perfect. I would like to briefly counter that by quoting the honourable Robert Clark, who was Victoria’s Attorney-General from 2010 to 2014. He has written about the Australian experience of assisted suicide. He describes a change in “attitudes”, with the “ethos” of the medical profession moving away from the practitioner’s primary duty to solve the problems the patient has, and a grave risk that this will lead over time to doctors forming views that a patient ought to be opting for assisted suicide and becoming inclined to regard that patients should go down that road.
He also highlights that there are things going wrong. I will not detain the Committee because of time, but I think there are alternatives. He points out that there are some doctors who, when they have resisted going along with a request for an assisted death, have found their whole careers eventually becoming somewhat blighted. Although there is a clause in the Bill which tries to avoid that, there is concern that that clause is incomplete. So, when we quote international evidence, we also have to be quite balanced in it.
The proposal in the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, do us a favour, because they demonstrate that this cannot be part of the NHS as it is at the moment. It begins to move us towards viewing some kind of proposal like this being completely outside NHS services but not planted in the NHS. Then, of course, the funding question arises. If funding erodes palliative care funding, which has happened in other places, we really have a problem, because recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee showed that, if you have specialist palliative care in place and available, as it ought to be, the savings to the country would be about £800 million a year.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to stand up today, so I apologise, but this group has not gone at all how I thought it would.
When I looked at Amendment 771 and the proposed assisted dying help service, I was confused. I had thought that navigators might take a similar role to that of independent advocates. We have a group about the importance of independent advocacy, which I am a huge supporter of, and about advising people on other care, health or treatments. That is coming up in 19 groups’ time. But it seems that Amendment 771 is illustrating the flaws of the entire Bill, whether that is geographical provision, training and qualifications, the right of practitioners to withdraw and the need to support vulnerable people.
We have also had a debate today about the funding of the proposed assisted dying help service. We have another group—group 30, which I hope we get to—on the provision of an assisted dying service by groups other than the NHS. I suggest that noble Lords opposite take the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to press the Government to provide clarity, before we get to that group, on the funding of an assisted dying service and—following the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—the future funding and support for hospice care.
I have an amendment in that 30th group, which I tabled because I think that the proposers of this Bill have missed a bit of a trick. If you want to set up an assisted dying service, you should do so in parity with the current arrangements for the hospice service. If we understand what the funding for the hospice service will be, we can have our debate in group 30 on alternative provisions.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I mentioned the future of palliative care. I did not mention the costs of an assisted dying service, which I am very willing to ask for as well, but at that stage I was focusing on palliative care.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I think both would help us, because there is confusion about the future of support for palliative care, and confusion as to whether the funding of an assisted dying service will take away from other services within the current NHS provision.
Finally, I just want to say that it is very different from the Scottish Bill, which very specifically does say that it will be within the NHS.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
It may aid the Committee to know that, before Christmas, the Minister in the other place indicated via a Statement that the Government were currently developing a palliative and end-of-life care modern service framework for England, and that it is planned publication date was the spring of this year. In that context, I hope that the Government and the Minister here will hear the calls from people—both those who support the Bill and those who do not—that it would be very helpful to us all in the deliberations on this Bill if the framework, its details and funding were provided to this House as soon as possible.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
On the point the noble Baroness made about funding, unfortunately the Minister has now communicated that it will not happen until autumn 2026, which any former Minister knows means 24 December.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I wonder whether the proposer of these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, can tell us whether he has any indication from the relevant royal colleges that their members would be available for this service. The idea is that you will have senior clinicians on a 24-hour basis, 365 days per year. I wish our facilities had sufficient capacity, but it is nonsense; there is not the remotest possibility of the National Health Service and the relevant clinicians being available.
If I am wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has an indication from them that their members will be available, the sooner we get that information here the better—but I just cannot see it. We cannot even deal with what we have at the moment, never mind adding to the burden.
On another issue, I must say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that it is 12.10 pm. By the time we finish this group, we will be at the lunch break. I have to say to him, as I said last week, that if we go on at the rate we are going, he is partly responsible. He needs to bring forward meaningful amendments, so that we can see the colour of his money now and not in weeks to come.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We are debating other people’s amendments at the moment. This debate has ranged pretty far and wide. These are not my amendments; they raise three particular issues. First, should there be a new organisation, an assisted dying help service? Secondly, should we ensure a different and more expeditious series of arrangements than that put in my Bill? Thirdly, should the commissioner act only as a regulator? Those are the three essential parts. I think there is merit in much of what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has said, but I am not in favour of an assisted dying help service. Further, my Bill sets out very detailed provisions for safeguards that are longer and less flexible than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. As for the commissioner being solely a regulator, I am not in favour of that. I think we need a regulator and the CQC has been suggested in relation to that. That seems quite sensible. I simply say that we have ranged so far and wide that I am slightly miffed at the idea expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that I am detaining people from their lunch because we have had this long debate.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I have to say that that was not my intention—the noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. I raised the point merely to indicate the length of time that this is taking and that a lot of the proposals and amendments on the Marshalled List could be addressed if we had amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, which he indicated in an email last week would be forthcoming. They are not here.
Lord Harper (Con)
I think that the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has put down these amendments is that it is not clear, from what the Government have said or what the Bill says, where this service is supposed to be—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is nodding at that. If the sponsor of the Bill had set out in the Bill more detail about how it would work and where it would sit, if there had been a proper process, many of the amendments from people with concerns would need to have been tabled and we would be moving faster. It is because of that gap and that failure, which is the sponsor’s responsibility, that this is taking a long time. It is necessary scrutiny to get the Bill right. That is what the public would expect of us.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I think that we can clear quite a number of these things away by taking one central issue. The big problem about being in government is that it is not a single issue that faces you; it is a whole range of issues, and you have to get a balance between them. When we talk about cost, it is perfectly possible to say that there is a majority of people who want this thing, and there is a majority of people who want that thing. The Minister and the Government have to decide how to share out the money that is available between those things. That is crucial to any decision made by this House. My concern is that we are not facing up to that. This is a single issue being presented to the House as if it can make decisions about single issues, irrespective of the effect of the decision on all the rest of the single issues that people also have strong views about.
If you asked the public whether they wanted more money for palliative care, they would almost universally say yes. If you asked the public whether they wanted a National Health Service where they could get an appointment with their GP within a week, they would say yes. If you asked the public whether they wanted a National Health Service where there was someone who could help them through complicated arrangements, they would say yes. The problem for this House is that we have to decide, first of all, what burden these proposals place on the National Health Service, the judicial service and the Government as a whole.
Lord Markham (Con)
In terms of, hopefully, being helpful, it is in the impact assessment. It is £28 million or, as I said, 0.000175% of the NHS budget.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am perfectly happy to accept the intervention, but I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, did not accept any intervention, as he might have found it difficult to answer the questions that we are asking.
The point that I am making is very simple and it remains: we have to make a decision always among priorities. The problem with this decision—and it is why this should have been a government Bill and not a Private Member’s Bill—is that, as a Private Member’s Bill, it is a single-issue Bill. It is promoted by people who want this to be decided irrespective of its effect on everything else that happens. That it is not acceptable, it seems to me, for the Government. The purpose of my comment is that it is not about how much the proponents think it will cost; it is about the effect of this over the rest of the National Health Service. If the Bill is passed, where is it going to fit? The Government really cannot get up and say that we are entirely independent. They have to tell us, if this Bill is passed, where they see it sitting, because the proponents of the Bill have not expressed this. What is the real cost; that is, not the sum of money, but the effect of it on the rest of the service provided? They also have to tell us how it will impact the essential demands that the public have for so many other things.
We can argue about what the public think about this Bill—I am pretty sure that they think about this Bill rather differently from what it actually is—but we have to recognise that the public also have very strong views about what money should be spent in other areas. The Government have to tell us, from their point of view, how much it will cost, what the effect will be on the other services provided, where it will sit if it is passed, and how they will overcome the problem that many of those who may be asked to support it have said that they will not. Those are things for the Government to tell us and, so far, they have been unable to put answers to any of those questions, which is the second reason—the other is the point that the noble Lord has just made about amendments—why we have constantly to go on arguing, in detail, about this Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will give a specific example. On 8 January, at col. 1416, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made a short speech, which consisted of about six specific questions. One of them was about the interaction of the health service and the Bill. Later that evening, I said to my noble and learned friend in intervention that he should come back within the next 10 days and answer those questions. The fact that he has refused to do so, and the suspicion being he has no intention of doing so, is why the amendments will keep being raised. That is basically the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was making: there is a suspicion that they will not be answered. If we could do that, we could make more progress anyway because of the nature of the amendments that have been put down.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Deben, that greater clarity, both from the promoter of the Bill and from the Front Bench, would assist the Committee in making sure its mind could be made up on these delicate issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, used to be my boss when I was a junior journalist at the BBC; I owe him a great deal. In framing this amendment, he has shown that a fine line, by insisting on speed and precision, can show us just what expedited delivery of a public service can achieve. If only the skill with which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has ensured that the ratchet moves forward at speed in this legislation had been applied, for example, to our planning system, or to any of the other areas where government is laggard and failing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pointed out, if the same degree of precision had been applied to the operation of our courts and tribunals, we would not need to be contemplating the end of trial by jury.
However, in putting forward this proposition, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is guilty of falling prey to two fallacies. The first is the Gadarene swine fallacy: the idea that, because so many are moving in one direction, we must follow expeditiously. He cited the fact that Jersey has voted for a form of assisted dying, and we are aware the debates are carrying on in Scotland and Wales. I shall not go into the devolutionary and union ramifications of those debates here—we will return to those later; they are critically important. But, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the arc of history does not bend in any one particular direction, and certainly not in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, wishes to see it bend. We have been reminded this week that Denmark can say no to being told what to do by others, not just in geopolitics but in other areas as well. What we can learn from Denmark, and indeed from the French Senate, is that the consideration of the detail of legislation matters.
The other fallacy which was inherent in his speech is the Robespierre fallacy: the belief that one can discern and interpret the general will and then push in a particular direction. As we have heard on the Floor of this House, opinion polling on the question of assisted dying gives us almost the conclusions that we might want to have. I was struck by the opinion polling cited in the British Medical Journal, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which pointed out that the majority of those asked, when they were compelled to share what they thought assisted dying meant, thought that it either meant the withdrawal of existing treatment at a particular point, at the request of the patient, or improved palliative care. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, cited other opinion polling as well, but the critical thing is that opinion polling points in different directions. It causes me concern. But it is the purpose of this House and the purpose of legislators here not to attempt to discern the general will and to enact it, but to look at specific legislation and to decide whether it is fit for purpose.
That takes me to another point about the assisted dying help service: a question for the promoter of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for the promoter of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and for the Front Bench. It is undoubtedly the case that, if the amendment standing in his name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were agreed, the process would accelerate, relative to that which is contained within the Bill. Yet, at the same time, it is the case that a new service is being set up, which, as a number of colleagues here have pointed out, might draw resources away from other aspects of the NHS. How is it possible that a service that is set up explicitly to accelerate, to be a concierge service in that way, will also attract, be staffed and operate in a way which ensures that at every point, objective, neutral, balanced advice is offered? Is it not in the very nature of this service that those staffing it—and one has to ask who would volunteer or would be paid for that role—would become engineers of a particular purpose? Is it not the case that those who would move towards recruitment in this area would be people who would be motivated I am sure from the best and most idealistic of motives, but those who would want to advance the path to death and accelerate suicide rather than incur reflection?
That takes me to a question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who might say that this is an amendment from the Back Benches, not something that he has been party to and that we as the Committee might consider it overall. He might well say that he has his own timetable in this legislation to which he is attached, which he would like us to pay particular attention to as we reflect on the Bill. But the question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is: if he could, would he back the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick? Is he in sympathy with the desire to accelerate this process? It is not enough for him to say, “Look, I haven’t put this forward”. The key question is: if he is in sympathy, will he say so, and if not, why not? If he believes he is not in sympathy, is that because he thinks it is right that there should be appropriate, greater reflection, and that there is something momentous about this decision? Is it also right that he believes that this would mean a diversion of resources?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I support the safeguards in my Bill, because I think they are the right safeguards. So, I do not support the proposals made. The Bill has got to be properly safeguarded, and my Bill gets the balance right.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am grateful to the promoter of the Bill for that, but that is a broad defence of the legislation as written and it takes us to the critical question for the Minister, which relates both to resource and timing.
The Government have committed additional money for palliative care, for hospices, which is welcome: £100 million for adult care in hospices; £80 million for children’s care in hospices. But those who lead the hospice service say that this additional money has already been swallowed up in additional costs. It does not augment palliative care. Yet, money is inevitably going to be diverted, if we pass the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and set this service up, as the promoter of the Bill acknowledges. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has pointed out, we have not had from the Government any adequate response on what additional resource might be devoted to palliative care, despite the fact that we had a national report into end-of-life care, produced by Marie Curie Cancer Care and others, more than 15 months ago. There has been no adequate response to that report. As the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has said, it is unconscionable that we should pass the Bill until we have had that response from the Government. It would be illuminating to know what the Government’s plans are on resources, not just if the amendment is passed but for care overall.
There is another responsibility on the Front Bench as well. Is it the case that, in the particular framing of the Bill we have in front of us, a future Government or Administration could create the service that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, wants by the simple assertion of a statutory instrument, 90 minutes’ debate, no proper vote and then, suddenly, the creation of exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, wants with his assisted dying help service? It will not be good enough for Ministers once again to talk about studied neutrality and to canter through the speech that may have been written for them by diligent public servants in their own department. We need to know: if the Bill is passed, could it be the case that the service that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, wants could be created by statutory instrument without appropriate scrutiny? Because if the Bill does mean that, then what we know is that we are creating a Bill with holes, opportunities, lacunae, slippery slopes, whatever language you may wish to use—a Bill which is, in itself, unsafe.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a Whip, but I have been here all morning and I think that many of the issues have been debated at length. The questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, are very pertinent, but I suggest that it would be good to hear from the Front Benches at this stage.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief; I want to make only one point. I am slightly surprised to be making it, because I expected others to make it during this now quite lengthy debate, although it was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It is to do with public reaction.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, but I believe it is important that Members who feel they have a contribution to make are able to make that contribution without being cut short.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Forgive me. I did not realise that there were other people who wished to speak. There was a pause.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Baroness for that.
This has been a telling debate thus far, because we are told that some of the points are based on opinion polls. We are not an elected Chamber and therefore we do not have to be swayed by how we are to get elected next time. Therefore, it is so important that we do not make laws on opinion polls. In fact, we have to debate the issues carefully—and trust that we are therefore making mature decisions—and seek to get the Bill right, because the issue that we are debating concerns life and death.
I have found something somewhat surprising whenever the cost has been talked about. Many people are rightly demanding an answer concerning the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned it a number of times. I was in this House when he was a Minister, but he is not now answering for the Government; I believe it is important that the answer comes from the Government Minister, who should give us the up-to-date cost. For any of these issues, costs do not minimise over the years. In fact, they increase—we will find at the end of the day that the costs will escalate. We heard in the debate yesterday that the cost of the Chagos Islands will be £3.4 billion, yet it was suggested on the Opposition Benches that it will be £34 billion. I am sure Members realise that there is quite a difference between those two figures—there is a dot between £3.4 billion and £34 billion. Nevertheless, we are talking about massive sums of money. We are also talking about money that could be taken from another part of the health service, which in many parts of the country, and certainly in Northern Ireland, is crying out for money; it needs every pound it can possibly get.
I believe the Bill was defective as it came from the other House, but I also believe that what has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, would make the Bill worse. The proposal here undermines choice even more. There is no equity of access under these amendments. What genuine choice is there if you can get an assisted death within 30 days but you have to wait months for the palliative care that you need? Palliative care is not available in many parts of the country; it is certainly not equally available right across the country.
Do the supporters of these amendments accept similar amendments that require palliative care treatment options to be made available and accessible within the same timeframe as this? They might say, “Yes, we would accept that”, but it is not a reality. There is no reality in which you will get palliative care within 30 days, because it is not available in many parts of the United Kingdom. How is it fair that terminally ill people get a personal navigator to support them through the process of getting an assisted death, but they do not get a personal navigator for gaining access to the palliative care they desperately need?
There are issues that need careful reflection. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, I note the following. In our debates over the past few weeks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said that he would reflect on some of the issues raised, but up to now I have not heard what that reflection has brought about in changes that need to be made to the Bill. Perhaps it would speed up the debate if we could get some knowledge about the reflections that he has had and some of the changes, in the light of the debates that have already taken place, that he will actually make in order to make the Bill more acceptable to many noble Lords.
The issue that we need to continue to reflect on is the extraordinary speed suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick. It undermines safeguards. Mandatory timelines force decisions without proper investigation. Panels must decide within two days of referral, even over weekends. I know of no other decisions made in the health service for which you can be promised that. There is also no judicial precedent for such haste, because courts take months for life and death decisions—yet this process is so fast.
Then we come to prognosis inaccuracy, which seems to be ignored. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a previous debate, I have known people who were given a six-month prognosis but continued to live three years later. Therefore, there is no consideration of prognosis inaccuracy. Rushing assisted death risks premature deaths.
Then we come to mental health risks. Reflection periods would be cut to 24 hours. Experts warn that depression after diagnosis is often temporary and treatable. Why can patients get an assisted death in 30 days but have to wait months for palliative care? Also, the amendments erode protections rooted in law and ethics; suicide prevention remains government policy.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister these questions. How can panels make life and death decisions within 48 hours without sacrificing due process? What safeguards exist against coercion when timelines are compressed, as suggested by the noble Lords in their amendments? How will the National Health Service meet these demands when GPs and social workers are already overstretched? We had and have, in past debates and up to this moment, numerous questions, but, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the Front Bench and the Government, we have very few, if any, real answers that we can hold on to.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I read this group of amendments with a lot of interest, in terms of whether a different way would be possible. I thank my noble friend for tabling them.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle that Australia is not an accurate comparative country to look at. Actually, it makes me feel even more strongly, and the Minister will have received a letter this week from many of us asking for the impact assessment to be looked at again. One of the reasons for that is that the impact assessment looks at about the first 10 years in Oregon. If we compare data between Oregon and the state of Victoria, it took Oregon 17 years to reach the same number of deaths that was hit in the state of Victoria—not Australia, but the state of Victoria—in the first 12 months of its Bill passing.
I accept that the first voluntary aided death in Victoria was described as beautiful, but in the time that that legislation has been enacted, it has thrown up many issues. In 2023-24, there were a number of complications with intravenous injections. There were technical problems in 5% of cases. In 10% of cases, the death took longer than expected—one person took seven days. In 29 responses, the death more than two hours. In seven reported cases, it took more than six hours, and the longest was 11 hours. So, we have to be really careful about painting other jurisdictions as the sunny uplands.
There was a case reported in the Times on 22 March last year, where a man had requested the drugs to end his life. He had decided that he wanted to have longer left to live, and his wife gave him the drugs anyway, because, I presume, she decided that it was his time to go. It is a very different jurisdiction, but it again raises issues of coercion.
We also have to note with Victoria that, since its legislation has passed, elder suicide has risen by 50%. These are the things that we must take into to account when we are looking at what happens in this country.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for arranging a meeting last year, when we were able to meet some Australian medics, but that gave me even more cause for concern, because there was a story of man who had taken a while to come to a decision to have an assisted death. The day he finally decided to have it and started taking the noxious mixture, he did not want to carry on and his family said, “But, Dad, you’ve decided to die today, you need to keep taking the mixture”. All these things worry me when we look at the speed with which these navigators might be able to push someone towards assisted suicide. In principle, a navigator sounds great, but they are only pushing people one way. We do not know enough about the training or whether, potentially, an AI bot might be used at some points. As has been raised, this could potentially just be debated in a 90-minute debate on a statutory instrument. So we have to look much more carefully at these areas. I do not think these amendments are adequate for what we want to do.
My noble friend Lord Birt raised the extremely sad case of Nick Dimbleby. But, as far as I understand, with his condition, MND, he would be not eligible for assisted suicide under the Bill. I would welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, confirming that.
It has been raised in different ways and on different days that our experiences of pain are very different. In other debates, we have talked about incontinence: what one person thinks is awful, another might think “I can live with it, it’s okay”. My noble friend Lord Birt talked about someone being PEG fed. Unfortunately, there is an inequality of the system in this very Chamber. My noble friend Lady Campbell is not able to respond to this group of amendments because she can only speak at the start. She cannot intervene later, so she is not able to listen to the debate and pick up points. I am sure she will be able to raise it, and I beg your Lordships’ tolerance because she might have to raise this in another group. There has been talk about being PEG fed being awful, but being PEG fed has enabled her to survive and to contribute. I worry about the inequality of this Chamber in terms of people being able to contribute properly.
Amendment 223 looks at this happening in four days. I do not believe that there is any system that will be able to, in that period of time, assess whether somebody has been coerced. Amendment 336, which says that the second assessment could happen after a period of reflection of seven days, does not even vaguely take into account the five stages of grief. There are not that many papers on people with spinal cord injuries, but one that I have read says that it can take up to seven years for a wheelchair user to get over the experience of traumatic injury. If you take that into account, people will be forced very quickly to end their life, when the ability to deal with the issue that is in front of them has not been taken into account.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long and comprehensive debate, and a number of points have been raised. I will try not to hasten it—
Lord Kamall (Con)
Sorry, I will try to hasten it, actually, in many ways. Maybe we should slow down.
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for the amendments in the group and the whole idea of establishing the assisted dying help service. As the noble Lord said, it is based on well-established experience. It seeks to address a number of important questions that the current draft of the Bill does not address. How will important services, such as care for the families of those who are seeking assistance under the Bill, be provided? Who will publish the appropriate information about the provisions of the Bill in the public domain? How will those seeking assistance be supported throughout the process? These are thoughtful amendments, but a number of noble Lords have quite rightly raised concerns about the potential downside to speed and efficiency in this case.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackinlay seek to ensure that when a personal navigator is allocated to the person seeking assistance—that sounds like a good suggestion—there must not be a presumption that, when they appoint that navigator, the person will necessarily continue with the process to its end. That gives the person who seeks it the option of changing their mind.
A number of the issues that we have discussed today have been discussed throughout the passage of the Bill. I have a number of questions; they are more for the Minister than the Bill’s sponsor, but I think that many noble Lords have questions for the Minister.
On the specific matter of the assisted dying help service, as well as the duty to publish information on the Act’s provisions, what consideration have the Government given to the interaction between the legitimate dissemination of information about assistance with ending one’s life and the encouragement of suicide, as prohibited by law under the Suicide Act 1961? I know that this issue came up very early on but, in this specific context, it is worth repeating.
A number of noble Lords have rightly asked about the workability of the help service, including what the cost of managing the service and the other running costs might be. Do Ministers feel that resourcing the service adequately might undermine the effective delivery of other parts of government? As a number of noble Lords have said, the Government have not really answered those questions about the available resources and where the money will come from. Once again, I am taken back to Second Reading, when the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—the latter being a former Health Minister—both said, “We know how the system works. This money will come from somewhere, and it will be at the expense of palliative care”. We are assured by those who support the Bill that that will not be the case; indeed, Ministers have themselves said that sufficient money will be made available. However, a couple of weeks ago, I asked almost the same question as my noble friend Lord Deben asked—albeit in a less eloquent way—of the Minister from the Ministry of Justice, and, last week, of the Minister from the Department of Health. To be fair to the Government, I received an answer from the Minister; if noble Lords allow me, I will touch on a few extracts from that letter and paraphrase where possible. The Minister’s letter to me said
“you sought confirmation that the Government is confident that palliative care will be sufficiently funded, so that those who may seek assisted dying services are offered a real, as opposed to theoretical, choice on palliative care to support them making a more informed decision”.
So far, so good. As my noble friend Lord Gove said, the letter talks about support for the hospice sector, including £100 million for adults and £80 million for children—I almost sound like a Minister responding here, I know, but we have to be fair when we challenge the Government on this. The Minister also mentioned the all-age palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework for England to improve the services. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said that it would be published in spring 2026, but the letter says that it will be published in autumn 2026—I think the Minister answered that; let us be fair: that is better than the answers that many Ministers from all parties have given over the years, where they often say “at pace” or—what is the other phrase?—“in due course”, but at least this gives us a real timeframe. The Minister also talked about the framework being aligned with the ambitions of the 10-year plan.
Lord Harper (Con)
On that point, I also got a copy of that letter. It is worth saying that, in the 10-year plan, there is no ambition for high-quality, universal palliative care. It is not there. So, if the plan the Government are going to publish in the autumn is aligned with it, I think we can see that they do not plan on making universal, high-quality palliative care available in the next 10 years. That is a real problem for decisions taken under this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Before commenting on the content of the Bill, I was seeking, just to be fair to the Government, to lay out what they have told me.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
May I pursue the important point that the noble Lord is making? The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock, was before a Commons Select Committee on this very point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has discussed. He declined to give any commitments about the content of the modern service framework for palliative care and declined to say that resources would be made available to fill the gap; the only specific commitment he gave was that a new 24/7 phone number would perhaps be put in place in 2027, I believe.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, as well. It reinforces the points I am going to come to—if that makes sense.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, ends the letter by saying:
“Through these actions … we hope to ensure sustainable funding for palliative care and end-of-life care sector in the long term”.
This is the Government’s stated intention. The next bit says:
“I hope this letter has provided clarification on the queries you raised”.
I will let noble Lords be the judge of whether it provides clarification. To be fair, the Minister copied the letter to all Peers who tabled amendments, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, and put a copy in the Library. I urge all noble Lords to read that letter to see whether they believe that it provides the clarification that many are seeking. If we feel that it does not, we should come back to this point in future weeks and raise these issues with the Government again.
I hope the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will take that on board when she answers. If she does not have the answer to many of these questions, we should wait for other noble Lords to read that letter, then maybe raise the questions again and ask whichever noble Baroness is on duty as the Minister in future weeks to answer questions on areas where we still believe there are gaps.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that letter and quoting the amounts of money in it. Does he recognise that that is one-off and not recurring funding, and there is no intention for funding to increase as cost of living and so on increase, and to meet the gaps in services that we have been talking about?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have to be very careful because I am not answering for the Government; I am just trying to reflect that letter. However, the Minister did make it clear that the children’s hospice funding is over the next three years and that it will account for £80 million in total. We all know how Governments work, and I not sure that any Government could give a commitment beyond three or four years or beyond another election. To be fair to the Government, I believe that they have answered the question about how much resource they will be allocating. It is up to noble Lords to decide whether they believe that that is sufficient, but if, whichever side of the debate they are on, they feel that the Government have not answered those questions, it is up to them to come back in future weeks and press the Minister on duty.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful comments, particularly those on the amendments proposing an assisted dying help service and a minimum timeline for the assisted dying process. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Mackinlay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments in this group.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his helpful comments on the detailed letter that has been sent to noble Lords. I hope that noble Lords can therefore accept that that is in train and that they will refer to the letter. Of course, there will be other opportunities to come back on particular details if required.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, aim to set up a new statutory body entitled the assisted dying help service, which would be part of the National Health Service. From a workability perspective, these amendments would create many new concepts and relationships that would conflict with the current provisions of the Bill. I note that considerable further policy development and legal drafting would be required to create a workable system should noble Lords support these amendments.
Amendments 287A and 287B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would create a new role for the General Medical Council—GMC—to set the requirements for training, qualifications and experience, and introduce new licensing, for assisted dying. Although the GMC has a function to set standards for doctors and recognise specialisms, it does not set requirements for training and qualifications for specific services, or license doctors to provide them. This would be a significant departure from the way that the GMC operates and would require it to identify a new process to identify the doctors on this register who are licensed to provide this service.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, we have asked the Minister on several occasions to give us the information that I think the Government still need to give us: what is the cost of doing these things? The letter does not meet that. She has just said that there would be difficulties, but we want to know the cost in detail, because it is for the Government to help the Committee to make decisions. Could she please say now, and, if not now, give the undertaking that she will investigate the cost, so we know how to make a decision?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I was just about to go on to the whole issue of funding, which many noble Lords have raised throughout this morning’s debate. The Government’s position is absolutely clear on this. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the Government would work to undertake development of the delivery model. Until the parliamentary process is complete, we are making no assumptions as to what the delivery model for an assisted dying service would be or what the role of specific departments in delivering the service would be.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister something that I do not think is an operational decision but a decision in principle, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and does not require the Government to take a view on whether they support assisted suicide or not? Is it the Government’s view—do they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—that we would have to change the founding principle underpinning the National Health Service to put this service in the NHS? If they agree with him, is that something the Government support? The Government can remain neutral on the principle of assisted suicide, but I want to know whether they think it should be inside the NHS or not.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am very aware of the repeated requests and comments. I come back again to the point that we have been making throughout the debates on these amendments, and throughout the process: until the parliamentary process is complete, we are making no assumptions as to what the delivery model will be. That is absolutely clear and straightforward, and has been emphasised by other Ministers before me.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to unfairly ascribe views to the Minister on behalf of the Government, but, just so I understand this, is she saying that the Labour Government do not have a view at all on whether we should change the founding principles of the National Health Service away from it being one that delivers medical treatment to save lives to one that also helps people to die? Is she really saying that they do not have a view?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am saying that, at this point, the Government are neutral on the whole area.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not think it is extraordinary, but I am sure the noble Lord will keep expressing his point of view.
Lord Deben (Con)
The Government can perfectly well say that they do not have a view on this, but, for Parliament to make a decision, surely they have to tell us whether, if we made this decision, they would have to change the basic principles of the National Health Service. That is the only question that we must ask. The Government must be able to tell us whether, if we make this decision, that is inevitable.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord and others will find other ways of asking the same question. I refer to my earlier answer.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I honestly believe that noble Lords are asking this question in good faith. I reiterate to the Minister—maybe she can think about this and come back—that we are being asked to make a decision about a huge change in healthcare provision, staffing and money, and the nature of what the NHS is. We are not trying to catch the Government out. We simply want to understand. Nobody could vote for this—even if you supported it, you could not vote for it. Can the Government please tell us, even if not now, what the implications will be if we vote for the Bill?
The Labour Government would say that the NHS is the most important, precious jewel in the crown, that nothing should damage it, and that we had to sacrifice an awful lot to save it only recently. I do not then want to vote for a Bill that is going to upturn the nature of the NHS inadvertently because the Government say they are neutral and cannot tell us otherwise. That is a big risk—risking the NHS, so that they do not have to answer. Even if the Minister cannot answer, we have to have that question answered; otherwise, we cannot seriously be asked to vote for the Bill.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I repeat that I am happy to write to noble Lords further on this point. I do not think that Members are going to move away from this point, so I am very happy to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asked whether the assisted dying help service could be set up through statutory instrument, and I am happy to write to him to clarify that point. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the point of the constitution. That is the most straightforward way to deal with this.
With the undertaking that the Government will write on the points that have not been addressed, I hope noble Lords will understand that, on the areas that I have not raised, we cannot confirm that the amendments are workable. That is the point I must make. With those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friend Lady Blake, who ended up caught up in the eye of a storm that was not of her own making. I very much sympathise with her. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his mature and helpful interventions.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, would, as he said, effectively do three things. First, they would introduce a new organisation called the assisted dying help service that would be responsible for providing both the judgment and the navigation through the process of assisted dying. Secondly, they would give the assisted dying help service specific power and a timeline that is much shorter and more flexible than the one in the existing Bill. Thirdly, the noble Lord insisted that the commissioner not give guidance, provide leadership, collect information and make assessments as to what is going on. Instead, the commissioner would be solely a regulator, without monitoring and other functions.
As I have indicated, I do not support those amendments. In relation to the key point, the safeguards in the Bill at the moment, as the noble Lord indicated, consist of three doctors, including the preliminary doctor, the panel, the periods of reflection and the doctor who gives the assistance at the end having to be satisfied that all the requirements are still in place and operative. That structure is the one we support, and we stick by it, because we think it provides a safeguard. We are not in favour of changing that.
Separately, in relation to the assisted dying help service, I am strongly in favour of the basic principle outlined by Stephen Kinnock, when he gave evidence to the Lords Committee, and of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and my noble friend Lady Blake. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to determine how it should be delivered. I accept that Clause 41, which was criticised by the deregulation committee in this House for being too vague, needs more detail. I said that I would come forward with more detail, so let me indicate what sort of detail, because people have indicated that they want that. I particularly isolate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, whose speech was effective in that respect.
It will name as the possible commissioners ICBs, the National Health Service England—which I appreciate is itself in a terminal condition and will shortly be abolished, but it has to be kept there—or the Secretary of State. Picking up the regulation point, it will specify that the services will have to be regulated by either NHSE or the CQC. It will specifically impose duties that currently reside with the NHS commissioners on the people who can make the commission. It will indicate the principles that the Secretary of State has to provide in doing the commissioning and it will limit the Henry VIII power in Clause 41(6), which is currently very wide and, as the deregulation committee said, needs to be limited. We will make considerable progress on that. I apologise for that not being available at the moment, but there are a number of amendments to be dealt with. I hope that is helpful. That deals with the essence of the points that have been made.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, were in effect about the problems with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Birt. Because I do not support that amendment, it would be otiose and time wasting for me to go through them.
I will deal with two other points: how much it is going to cost and where it is going to come from. There is an impact assessment that, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, suggests that in year 10 the annual cost will be something under £30 million. It is ridiculous to suggest where that money is going to come from in 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, says that we need to know where the money is going to come from and how much it is going to cost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says that maybe the money will come from somewhere else. The noble Baroness criticises the impact assessment because she says it is based on Oregon, not on greater experience. If the Government take the view that they cannot rely on the impact assessment for the points that she makes—it is not a promoter view; it is a government view—then no doubt the Government will have to make a decision about whether they need a new impact assessment. For my part, the impact assessment looks careful and rigorous. When we make the decision about assisted dying, we know how much it will cost on the basis of the impact assessment. We have to make a decision as a Parliament as to whether, in the light of that cost, we think it should go ahead. It is true to say that it is a very small part—a tiny part—of the total budget for the NHS.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
On that very point, the noble and learned Lord’s Bill, at Clause 41(4), does indeed propose that an interpretation will be imposed on Section 1(1) of the 2006 Act, suggesting that he thinks there is some ambiguity on that point. As to the question about withdrawing care from an MND patient, surely the distinction between an act and an omission—the ability for somebody to choose to decline treatment—is a well-understood principle that has no bearing on the question of an assisted death.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
They are fundamentally different, but the idea that removing the respiratory equipment does not involve some acts is not realistic. But I completely accept the proposition that they are different. On the legal point, there is some ambiguity about what the section means and whether it needs to be changed, but I am making it absolutely clear that, from my point of view and that of the promoters of the Bill, it is most certainly not outside the broader founding principles of the NHS.
Lord Deben (Con)
I accept that very much from the noble and learned Lord. The question I asked, because I think it important, is for the Government to say what the legal situation is, which they have a duty to tell us before we can make the decision. I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord said about his own position, but this is a question for the Government, if they are independent of this. They have a duty to provide information to the House before we can make these decisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The broader question of whether this contributes to healthcare is for each of us to make our own judgment about. If noble Lords take the view—I am talking not about the legal issue but the broader issue—that this is wrong and contrary to the basic founding principles of the NHS, they can vote against the Bill. But if Parliament passes the Bill and says, “We are happy that that is the position”, it is saying that it is an acceptable part of healthcare.
Lord Deben (Con)
The noble and learned Lord really must accept that there is a problem with this being a Private Member’s Bill. He can say what he likes about the Bill, and I acknowledge and accept his absolute honesty about it, but the Government have the role of informing the House. Indeed, they do it: every time we have a debate, the Minister gets up and says that this or that would be difficult or awkward, or would be contrary to the European Court of Human Rights. I am only asking that they do that job on this. Is what is being proposed contrary to the founding position? Would the law have to be changed? It is up to the Government to tell us. We can then decide whether that matters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is for Parliament to decide whether it is willing to pass the Bill. If Parliament is willing to pass the Bill, there may be the need for the legal change that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to. Whether or not you are willing to make the change is, for the reason I have said, a matter of what you think is the principle. Those are the only remarks that I need to make in relation to that, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
There will later be a group of amendments that relate to freedom of conscience. The noble and learned Lord has outlined another group of people in response to solving the issue from the Delegated Powers Committee around commissioners and NHS England. At this stage, in an effort to use our time efficiently, will he think about how wide the conscience clause will need to be to include people who have objections to this—it is not just clinicians; it may be those who do not want to be involved in commissioning these services—so that we do not end up with a huge group later in Committee?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I will certainly think about it. I am not quite sure what the noble Baroness is asking, but whatever it is, I will try to co-operate as much as possible.
Lord Gove (Con)
The noble and learned Lord made it clear that he felt that there needed to be further clarity in the Bill following the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodman about who would eventually provide the service. Is it the case that he believes that the Bill, as written currently, would allow the Government to create an assisted dying help service by means of statutory instrument?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I expect that it would not, but I cannot give a definitive view in relation to that. The reason I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in the way that I did is because I have already committed myself, in the light of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, to limit the scope of Clause 41.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am very grateful. I note that the noble and learned Lord says he suspects that it would not. It might be of assistance, certainly to me if to no one else, if he, and indeed the Minister, could let me know, with greater clarity, whether or not my concerns can be addressed with a greater degree of certainty.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I will certainly try to provide that co-operation.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I will try not to keep us too long from our lunch. This has been a lively and helpful debate, and I think it has exposed a fair number of critical issues that are yet to be resolved.
My past has caught up with me in this debate. How many people here knew that I used to be the boss of the noble Lord, Lord Gove? It was not my fault. He was a genuinely distinguished young BBC journalist, in all seriousness, and hugely admired by his colleagues. The debate has also revealed that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I went to the same north Liverpool grammar school, so anybody who objects to anything that she or I put forward can blame the Irish Christian Brothers.
I cannot possibly deal in any detail—and noble Lords would not want me to—with the many points raised over the past three hours. I approached the construction of these amendments, with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with a truly open mind, and I retain an open mind. The Chief Whip often tells us that his door is always open. My door is always open—not that there is one, because I do not have a proper office—and I am completely open to discussing any issue that has been raised. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I will wish to return to these matters when we come to Report.
I will just say a few things now. I approached the Australian practitioners with a completely open mind. I was in favour of assisted dying but I wanted to understand what real-life experience was like. I am very data-driven, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, has often pointed out, and wanted to immerse myself in the Australian data. It was my learning, and then discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that caused us to frame our amendments in the way we did.
The central thing that emerged from those discussions, which has been lost in our debate so far, is that, actually, people are not coming forward. They already have palliative care. Their pain is more or less controlled. The central point that the Australian practitioners wanted to get across to me, over and again, was that this is about misery, and people running out of time and wanting to end their life. Hence the key Australian data I shared was that, roughly speaking, 25% of people who come forward for assisted death die within nine days.
That is why I told the Committee about the Nicholas Dimbleby experience, because I thought that was indicative of the kind of people who want it. It is at the end of a very painful, prolonged process of suffering that people want an expeditious end. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have sought to retain the process that is in the Bill but tried to make it more flexible, to deal with what can be genuine emergencies. And it is an emergency. There is a part of the National Health Service that deals with emergencies on Christmas Day—it is called A&E. We are talking about a service that will deal with genuine emergencies.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My apologies for intervening, but my noble friend mentioned the number of people who access palliative care. The state of New South Wales promised £743 million in extra funding for palliative care over a five-year period, but, when the law was passed, it cut that funding by £150 million and diverted money to assisted suicide. Does my noble friend accept that, although he says people are getting palliative care, big promises are being made and then ripped away from people? It limits the choice they have, because there is not as much palliative care support as they originally thought. There is a feeling that that was promised just to get the Bill across the line.
Lord Birt (CB)
The one issue that unites the whole Committee is that we have to have an effective service of palliative care in this country. The data in Australia, which varies from state to state, tells us that somewhere between 70% and 90% of people who come forward already have palliative care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about navigation. It is a complex process, even in the Bill as it stands. If you analyse the likelihood, you will find that it will probably take, without the right process involved, 30 to 60 days, which is completely inappropriate in the context of the Australia experience. By the way, the navigator is an administrative role to help the person manage a complex system with multiple practitioners, who themselves have real authority.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
To clarify, I am sure the noble Lord knows people who have tried to get a hip replacement or a wide range of other medical treatments. It is the most complex process that you could ever go through. Many people are vulnerable and could do with a navigator. Does he understand the two-tier nature of appointing a navigator in one instance and not in another? This follows on from the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Can the noble Lord see that anything that seems to give preferential treatment to those seeking assisted dying over those who are suffering pain from a bad hip or who have a rare cancer and are terminally ill would cause political problems? Immorality might be part of the issue there.
Lord Birt (CB)
Believe it or not, I have had cause, at various times in my life, to navigate the NHS, as probably everybody in this Committee has, and of course it is very difficult. However, when you go into A&E, you effectively do have a navigator. I do not think this is about the hip operation example; it is about people in a genuine emergency situation.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I have been to A&E many times, particularly with my son, and I have never had a navigator. How does one have a navigator in A&E?
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry; perhaps the noble Baroness can talk to me later, as I could not take in what she said.
I am, frankly, open-minded about the NHS question and accept the strength of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, says. It may well be that this is an organisation that should be apart from the NHS but uses some of its services. However, I am happy to talk to others about how best to do that.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the process can, and should, be designed not only to support assisted dying but to painstakingly explore the alternatives to assisted dying, and I did say this. We suggest that palliative care should be one of those services and, whatever the reasons that people have for assisted dying—there may be others beside their chronic near-death state of mind—we also propose that the organisational body should be able to help the person in other sorts of ways. We want it to be a balanced process.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking my question at this stage of the debate. I listened very carefully to him when he was setting out his proposals and I welcome the fact that he said that the navigator can discuss palliative care and such issues with the person concerned. Unless I misunderstand his amendments, they do not propose to help secure those services for the person. They might set out what they are, but they do not get them, so there is an imbalance there. They will help them get the assisted suicide but not proper palliative care.
Lord Birt (CB)
I do not think it for us, in framing in principle amendments, to deal with that level of issue, but the noble Lord is right—that is exactly what the body should do. We are talking about highly distressed people, and it should facilitate different kinds of response and reaction to their difficulty.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he said that anyone going to A&E gets a navigator. He was challenged by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, but he did not hear her question. She said that she never experienced that in her life and neither have I. If any noble Lord has, I would be grateful to hear it. If you go to St Thomas’, the first people you meet are two security guards who are there to keep people out.
Lord Birt (CB)
Plainly, the NHS is a very large organisation and it offers a variety of different kinds of experience. I hope none of us uses A&E very often but, like everybody else, I have used it and, in my experience, I have found it very efficient indeed at handling everything.
As I have said already, there are many issues and if anybody wants to talk to me and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about them, please do. I end with a very simple point, and I address this particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am utterly convinced that this needs a proper organisational framework. You cannot throw this complexity of issues at the National Health Service. It also needs a more flexible process than currently exists to deal with the complexity that I have outlined, which comes out of the Australian experience. Both those things need to be in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I will be returning to these issues on Report with, I hope, as much help from across the Chamber as possible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(1A) Assistance may be provided only under this Act where the person has demonstrably understood—(a) their diagnosis,(b) their prognosis,(c) their treatment options, (d) any inherent uncertainties in the assisted dying process, and(e) any known risks and likely complications of the approved substance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to strengthen the Bill’s informed consent requirements by ensuring that a patient’s understanding must be demonstrated, rather than assumed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will move my Amendment 39A and speak to my Amendments 238B and 553G. The purpose of Amendment 39A is to require that the patient’s understanding is demonstrable, not assumed.
Before I continue, I wish to thank the Chief Whip for his very wise decision to have a 40-minute lunch break but, as the average age of this House is 71, it was more like a loo break. It was very convenient, whatever it was. I move on to the subject of the amendment.
This amendment goes to the heart of autonomy. The Bill repeatedly invokes autonomy as its moral foundation, yet it does not require that the patient’s understanding be demonstrated. In every other area of medicine, informed consent requires evidence that the patient has actually understood the information. Here, where the outcome is irreversible, the evidential threshold should be higher, not lower.
The Bill currently requires doctors to “explain” and “discuss” certain matters, but it nowhere requires confirmation that the patient has absorbed or understood them. That is a fundamental flaw. NICE guidance, GMC guidance and the Montgomery judgment all emphasise that consent is valid only when the patient understands material risks, uncertainties and alternatives. The Bill omits these requirements.
International comparators—Oregon, California and Victoria—all require explicit discussion of risks and complications. England and Wales would be an outlier if we did not require demonstrable understanding. This amendment simply aligns the Bill with established medical ethics and legal precedent.
My final point on this amendment is that it protects clinicians. Without a demonstrable understanding requirement, a doctor could comply with the Act while failing to meet professional standards. That is a recipe for litigation, confusion and moral hazard.
My Amendment 238B would introduce a safeguard that is standard in every jurisdiction where assisted suicide is legal. A written acknowledgement would ensure that the patient has been informed of the risks— including prolonged dying, vomiting, seizure or failure of the drugs—and that they understand them. Without this, the Bill creates a parallel medical system where the usual rules of consent simply do not apply.
The Bill currently requires doctors to discuss
“the nature of the substance”
and what to do in the event of “complications”, but it does not require doctors to explain that complications may occur or what they are. That is a glaring omission. A patient cannot meaningfully consent to a life-ending drug without knowing that it may not work as intended.
Those noble Lords who have experienced cancer treatment or chemotherapy know that, before one gets it, one has to spend about an hour with a clinician or the oncologist ticking boxes on a form, explaining and saying that they understand all the potential downsides. I recall having to complete a seven-page form to do so. It is important that patients consent.
This amendment would also protect clinicians. The Bill grants civil liability exemptions for doctors acting in good faith but, without a written acknowledgement, there is no evidential record that the patient was informed of the risks. This exposes clinicians to professional risk and undermines public trust. Finally, this amendment is modest, proportionate and entirely consistent with the principle of autonomy.
I turn to my Amendment 553G, which is a Montgomery compliance clause. It would require doctors to apply the principles of Montgomery v Lanarkshire when informing patients of material risks. The amendment would embed that leading case on informed consent into the Bill. Montgomery requires doctors to inform patients of material risks and reasonable alternatives. The Bill does not currently require this. That omission is extraordinary in a process that ends in death. Without this amendment, the Bill creates a parallel medical system where the usual rules of consent do not apply. That is ethically indefensible. If anything, the standard should be higher than in ordinary medicine, not lower. This amendment would also protect clinicians by ensuring they are not forced to choose between complying with the Act and complying with their professional obligations. Finally, I believe that this amendment would align the Bill with international best practice.
These three amendments together would make the policy clearer, leaner and fairer. By tightening rules and strengthening enforcement, amendment 1 would remove ambiguity and speed decisions, reducing disputes and legal exposure. My amendment 2 would lower operational friction and cost by streamlining processes and clarifying responsibilities, which would improve efficiency and predictability during implementation. My third amendment would enhance fairness and future readiness by embedding equitable principles and scalable mechanisms, increasing stakeholder buy-in and adaptability as circumstances evolve. The result would be a more enforceable, cost-effective framework that better serves stakeholders today while remaining flexible for tomorrow. These amendments are practical, complementary—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The noble Lord referred to amendment 1, amendment 2 and amendment 3. I apologise, but I did not know which his amendment 2 was.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I realise that I should not have said that. When I spoke to my amendment 1, I meant Amendment 39A. I shall rephrase that: my Amendment 39A would remove ambiguity and speed decisions; my Amendment 238B would lower operational friction and costs by streamlining processes; and my Amendment 553G would enhance fairness and future readiness by embedding equitable principles and scalable mechanisms, et cetera. I believe that those three amendments would result in a more enforceable, cost-effective framework that would better serve stakeholders today while remaining flexible for tomorrow. The amendments are practical, complementary and strategically aligned to deliver measurable improvements in performance, compliance and stakeholder confidence. I commend them to the Committee and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 43, to which Amendments 312 and 340 are consequential, and Amendment 188A, so I will speak to those. Amendment 43 would bring in the term “demonstrably”. I appreciate that noble Lords may think that this is dancing on the head of a pin, but it is my understanding that the use of “demonstrably” is well known in legal practice, and it effectively requires evidence. I appreciate that there are other aspects of the Bill, when it was first introduced, that were set out in specific forms, but they have been replaced by a variety of regulations and other powers, so I think we just need to be clear about what that really means.
Being informed conceptually is meaningless unless we can establish that the person can demonstrate to healthcare professionals and others that they understand assisted dying, they understand the process and they are absolutely committed to this journey on which they go. The Bill currently requires that certain matters be explained and discussed, but it does not require evidence that the patient has understood them. I appreciate that one of the things about the current Clause 3 of the Bill is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which is at the MoJ level but is used in the NHS, requires in effect only a balance, rather than something much firmer, in terms of probabilities of understanding.
It is important to understand the impact of the lethal drugs that people are going to be given, and my noble friend referred to international examples. In Victoria in Australia, and in Oregon in the USA, there are firmer elements of how it can be demonstrably identified and verified that this decision is being made. It should also be recognised that we need to make sure that the doctors setting this out may say, “Your death is actually going to be quite straightforward. It may take longer, but it may not be as painful”. I accept that people on this journey are close to dying, but they need to understand the risks and how that comes about. We have not yet got into the detail of understanding which drugs are going to be used in this process.
One of the reasons I tabled the amendment on Montgomery compliance is that there was a significant ruling to do with liability and negligence. Back in 2015, the Supreme Court effectively made sure that a patient-centred focus became the norm. There was a more recent ruling in the case of McCulloch in 2023. In 1985 the House of Lords judges spoke about the professional basically making the decision, whereas the key ruling in the 2015 case, and the principles behind it, show that case law has helped to evolve what has ended up becoming guidance. We should be clear in this Bill about the exact approach that we want to have. I appreciate that this may seem a bit nebulous to the Minister, but I tabled it as a probing amendment.
In the case of McCulloch, the NHS basically said, “We’re more or less back to Bolam”, which was the original test. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, had to leave early, but this is one of her key areas of expertise; she teaches this in different places around the country, including in the NHS. One of the presentations that she shared with me shows that the director’s advisory role involves dialogue, the aim of which is to ensure that there is an understanding of the seriousness of a condition. The information provider has to be comprehensible. The doctor’s duty is therefore not fulfilled by bombarding the patient with technical information that they may not reasonably be expected to grasp, let alone by routinely just demanding a signature on a consent form.
I am trying to make sure that, instead of just relying on case law that may change, we end up being very clear about the need for a patient-centred focus and the principles on which we expect this process to happen. The other aspect, which we will get into a bit later, is that I am just trying to explore what this looks like for the person involved, at a pretty scary time of their lives, if we go down this route. I am afraid I have seen it happen too often with things such as DNR: patients are not necessarily given good advice and are told that the doctor knows best. I want to be crystal-clear that somebody who is going through a difficult moment needs to be aware of not only options but risks, and what the balance might be on whether to go with a lethal dose of certain drugs or to take a different route in order to end their life in a good way. That is why I have proposed these amendments.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 55, 246, 319, 342, 387, 453 and 513 are all about the same thing. They are designed to ensure that those contemplating assisted suicide fully understand the effects on their bodies of the drugs that they will be given and know about possible complications. As it stands, Clauses 12(2)(c)(iv) and 12(2)(d) merely require that doctors explain how the drug will kill them and that they discuss what ought to be done in the event of complications. The Bill does not require any sort of explanation about what these complications may be or how likely they are to occur.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, for the purposes of the point I am making, I am going to proceed on the assumption that was put forward by the sponsors that the drugs used for an assisted death are to be treated as a healthcare intervention, although I do not accept that this assumption is correct. If that assumption is made then the legal and ethical standards governing informed consent must apply in full. I added my name to Amendment 55, which would require that the patient understands fully the physiological effects of the lethal drugs used for assisted suicide and their possible complications.
The General Medical Council provides guidance on decision-making and consent to medical professionals. It requires that a clinician must be satisfied that a patient has given valid consent before an intervention unless there are certain legal exceptions, which would not apply to assisted dying. The guidance is explicit about what informed consent requires. Patients must be given clear, accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based information. For every option, clinicians must explain the potential benefits; the risks, including side effects and complications; the uncertainties involved; and the likelihood of success. Where there is uncertainty about outcomes or the quality or limits of the evidence, the clinician has a duty to be open about that uncertainty. Informed consent is not compatible with ambiguity being concealed, minimised or glossed over.
Who provides this important information for the consent process? The MHRA regulates medicines in the United Kingdom by assessing their safety, quality and efficacy before licensing, and by monitoring harms after licensing through the Yellow Card scheme. I intend to return to this in a later group. The GMC is explicit that a clinician should propose or prescribe a medicine or treatment only when they have sufficient and reliable information. This includes agreeing with the patient by giving a clear explanation of the benefits, the risks, the common and serious adverse effects, and what to do if problems arise.
On the drug protocol, there is currently no internationally agreed prescribing protocol for assisted dying. There is a wide range of drug types, combinations and doses being used, with significant variation even within individual countries. Protocols include varying combinations of barbiturates, benzodiazepines, opioids, cardiotoxic agents and neuromuscular blockers. Under the current Bill, the intention appears to be that the drugs to be used for assisted dying would be prescribed off-licence. An unlicensed drug is one used outside the terms of its licensed indication. Under existing GMC guidance, prescribing an off-licence drug requires a clinician to
“be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence … to demonstrate its safety and efficacy”.
However, there is no systematised clinical research, no standardised reporting and marked variability in practice. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data available for these drugs individually come from therapeutic use, which is quite different from the very high doses or combinations required to induce death.
The Government’s impact assessment refers to an experimental drug regime from Oregon, one of the few jurisdictions that has published the outcomes of orally ingested approved substances. These drug combinations are not the product of conventional clinical trials but a form of human experimentation that was introduced without prior scientific evaluation and bypassing conventional regulatory frameworks. A combination of four drugs was chosen out of necessity because of restricted access to barbiturates, rather than good evidence of safety and efficacy. Subsequently, a fifth drug has been added in an attempt to reduce the median time to death. Rather than the quick and pain-free death advertised by the sponsors and campaigners, what has been documented are significant adverse effects, as reported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.
The drugs generally regarded as most effective in assisted suicide are barbiturates, particularly high-dose pentobarbital and, less commonly, secobarbital. These were the agents used in Oregon before restrictions on their export to the USA because of their use in capital punishment. This restriction forced assisted suicide providers to look for alternatives. The barbiturates cause death by reducing brain activity, leading to loss of consciousness and respiratory arrest. They are the same agents used in veterinary euthanasia in the United Kingdom, where they are subject to very strict veterinary regulatory requirements. However, these substances are not licensed for human use in the United Kingdom. They are class B controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, meaning that they cannot be prescribed, imported or possessed without Home Office authorisation. The assertions made in the other place and in the Government’s impact assessment that appropriate drugs are already licensed and available for off-licence use appear to be incorrect. I would welcome the noble and learned Lord’s response to this.
Despite this, the proposed approach does not involve licensing by the MHRA, nor appraisal or guidance by NICE, and no clinical trials are required. Instead, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the power to specify the drugs and procedures by regulation, including their manufacture, supply and storage, thereby bypassing the established regulatory frameworks that apply to every other drug.
I could describe what the consent process might look like. When a drug is prescribed for you, you get a leaflet which sets it all out. It tells you what the indication is, what the likely success is and what the most common complications are. One in 10 is very common, and these are the kinds of side effects, complications or adverse effects described by the noble Baroness. Imagine saying to the patient that outcomes are variable, and many complications have been reported, suggesting that one in 10 people who take this combination of drugs may experience vomiting, seizures or may regain consciousness. One in 10 is very common. You would also have to say that there is no guidance or certainty about what support would be provided to you if you experienced these very common adverse effects.
That is what the obtaining of informed consent would look like under the current Bill. That would not be acceptable to any regulator or professional body, or, I suggest, to any patient who had the capacity to consent.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 39A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Wolfson at the Dispatch Box, because although I support the amendment, it is more that it enables us to raise important principles, not necessarily the details.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for outlining informed consent and mentioning that the patient has to have sufficient and reliable information. The noble and learned Lord’s Bill says that there should be a
“clear, settled and informed wish”.
This is another occasion where I fear that the Bill is legislating for an analogue age. Much of the principle around informed consent comes from a situation where the patient is gaining much, if not most, of their information from the clinician or support staff. That is not the case today. We know that people have access to many more sources of information.
I ask the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill: what is the situation in regard to reliable information or an informed wish if in front of the clinician is a young person who basically has just been watching on a doom loop information that is false? We have the problem now—there may be an issue around the development of the law on informed consent here—of people having a lot of misinformation or false information. From the wording of the amendment, it is not clear what the duty would be on the clinician if they are aware that the person has an informed wish but it has been informed by false information.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there are some amendments in a later group—the 50th group—on this subject of approved substances and their regulation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, pointed out, if you buy a packet of aspirin, you get a sheet that gives you the different risk levels. What I would like to know from the Government is: what will be done to ascertain how this list of approved substances is compiled? We know from examples given earlier today that, sometimes, things go wrong. When you go through any medical procedure, you are always asked to sign a piece of paper asking whether you consent: quite often, you are practically on the slab when you are asked to sign it.
The point I am getting at is: have we done any homework on what these substances should be? Have we analysed internationally how they have interacted in circumstances where assisted suicide is being promoted or is available? Do we have any of that information? We know, as has been mentioned, of circumstances in which executions have been carried out in certain American states, and even there, where multiple substances have been used with one purpose, sometimes it does not work out. We know that that is the case, and I cannot think of anything worse if we go down this track.
Although the promoter of the Bill has made his position clear, this is a matter for the Government as well. The Government have to tell us whether they have done any meaningful research. What is the legal framework? How will these substances be handled, bearing in mind that they will be going all over the country? They will not be going just to a single place. Pharmacies throughout the hospital system are very pressurised environments. Staff will have to be retrained. Given the nature of these substances, special procedures will have to be employed in practically every pharmacy in the United Kingdom where they will be required; I should say that, by “pharmacy”, I mean a hospital pharmacy.
I fear that this is another example of something that is half-baked; it is not worked out, researched or available. We have blank spaces around these lethal substances, and we are asking: what are they? All the questions—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. In group 50, we will deal with the process of the selection, approval and regulation of substances. In this group, we are dealing with making sure that the patient is properly informed before they make the decision. Many of the questions that the noble Lord raises about how we are going to choose the substances are perfectly valid, but I suggest that we deal with them under group 50.
Lord Empey (UUP)
As I said when I opened my remarks, I have amendments in group 50 for that purpose, but there is an inextricable link between having knowledge about these substances and having informed consent, so we cannot compartmentalise it as easily as that. The people who are overseeing the consent of the person must also have that knowledge. The risk factors have to be made available to the patient: that is my point. Because there has not been sufficient research done on these matters, I am not convinced at this stage that the information being provided to the patient is accurate. How can it be if the research has not been done?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is about the process of information giving. The lead amendment, Amendment 39A, is about the person having an understanding.
In any process of giving information, there is no point just giving the information: broadcasting it, if you like. You have to check that the person has understood it. Usually, in clinical practice, that is done by asking the patient, “Can you tell me what you have understood from what I have just told you?” That allows the patient to repeat back. Sometimes, you find that they have not understood it at all. Sometimes, you find that they have over-understood and brought in other sources of information, and you can then deal with misinformation that comes in and that might be relevant to them. That process is behind consent. The signing of a consent form is simply verification that the process of handing over and receiving information has happened. It is not the signature that matters, it is the process.
I will deal very briefly with something that came up before lunch—
Lord Scriven (LD)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that it is the process. In the Bill, there would be two doctors who, after sitting down and discussing with the patient their understanding, have to write an independent report that details the very things that the noble Baroness has noted, which are within the provisions of the Bill, and then goes to the independent commissioner. What is missing in the Bill that would describe the process that the noble Baroness has given that would require extra provision to determine that the two doctors have not just understood that the patient has signed the form but have detailed in the report why they think the patient both has capacity and has given consent?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If I may, I would like to come on to the issue of the information around drugs, because that is key. But I did not want people to think that simply signing the form was adequate.
Withdrawing ventilation, which was raised earlier, is a fundamentally different situation from this. If a patient is on a ventilator, they would have died earlier without that intervention. When they withdraw consent for ventilation to continue, you still have a duty of care towards them. You need to go through all the processes as to what you will do when you withdraw the ventilation and how that will be managed, so the patient understands how long you expect it to take and that they will die without the ventilation. They must understand that they are dying of the disease that they would have died from previously. That is quite different from to the proposal in this Bill about lethal drugs. I will come on to those lethal drugs now.
This has been sold out there to the public as if this is a Hollywood death—as if you take one little tablet and that is the end of it. In evidence to the Select Committee on 22 October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated that the substance used
“will be safe, efficacious and not cause suffering”.
I would like to know the basis on which he can say that with assurance.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
In the Select Committee, Chris Whitty, the head of the NHS, said that no drug will be given to any patient that was not approved by NICE. That is what he said: no drug will be given to anybody that was not approved by NICE.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
When you prescribe a drug for a patient, NICE may have given approval for it, but the side effects, the toxic effects and the interaction with other drugs is not determined by NICE. That is done by the clinician, who must inform the patient. I do not dispute that they must be NICE-approved drugs, but NICE has not done an appraisal process for these drugs to be used for the process of ending life. The fundamental problem is that no research has been done into how these drugs, at high toxic dose, actually end life. I will come on to that, if noble Lords will bear with me.
In 2022, I co-authored a review of the efficacy and safety of drugs used for assisted dying, which was published in the British Medical Bulletin. The Oregon mixtures used to bring about death, which have been referred to, have a 6% to 7% complication rate. We have heard about the complications; I will not go through those again. The drugs are not being given at a therapeutic dose. I am not going to go into the doses, because there will be people watching this broadcast who may feel suicidal and there is no way that I want to be complicit in giving them information that promotes their suicidality.
The one thing I will say is that this is not about morphine. Morphine is not used to bring about the deaths. In Oregon, DDMA—the one already referred to—consists of overdoses of diazepam, digoxin, a small amount of morphine and amitriptyline. But the doses are 100 to 200 times the therapeutic dose. That means you are talking about 100 to 200 tablets to be swallowed or crushed in a mixture to swallow. Digoxin has a delayed effect in creating an abnormal heart rhythm or cardiac failure. Amitriptyline is highly toxic to the heart. Nobody has done the research in these patients to look to see why and when their heart stops.
Some patients, however—nine in Oregon and seven in California—have been documented as reawakening. Although that was not counted as a complication in their reports, these are documented. The Bill says nothing about what happens when the patient starts to reawaken, when they will be extremely drowsy and unable to take a further dose of drugs, or if they are very drowsy and have a very prolonged time between ingestion and death. As we have heard, the highly toxic barbiturate that has been used in Switzerland and in some other countries is not licensed for humans and there is no data on it.
Just to illustrate that it is not always straightforward, in 2017, a man called Kurt in Colorado was told that his death would come about within about two hours when he was given lethal drugs, but his wife described him coughing and choking for eight hours until he died—certainly distressing. If you are going to take this lethal mixture, you need to know what is in it and how it is going to bring about the end of your life.
There is also the ability in this to have equipment—that is specified in the Bill. But again, without knowing what that equipment is, we do not know what the patient will be consenting to. We have heard about the Sarco pod, which was a disaster in Switzerland, but the person who developed it is trying to develop further modifications of it. Basically, the idea is that a lack of oxygen will cause cardiac arrest and death, but, again, no research has been done. When the drugs are given intravenously, there is a short-acting sedative and, in the case of about two-thirds of patients, it is followed up by a paralysing agent, which means that all movement stops, you cannot signal if you have reawakened, you will stop breathing because all your muscles are paralysed and you will die of asphyxia. The difficulty is that the research that needs to be done has not been done.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that, if we do not pass the Bill, people will continue to self-administer drugs that they obtain from who knows where or, as some of us know, hang themselves or take themselves into a car and use the exhaust pipe? Am I right that the noble Baroness seems to want to add something that is not there now for people who take their lives in the same position?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
That is a very helpful intervention because the evidence from the places that have gone down this road and changed their legislation is that the unassisted suicide rate does not fall. This does not seem to prevent suicides from happening and these amendments are about people having information. With these amendments, we are not debating whether the Bill passes; we are debating the contents of the Bill and whether it is safe for patients.
Given the problems, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: is there a plan to relicense drugs that in this country are available only for veterinary use, for the purpose of ending the life of patients here?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will make two brief points. First, I support the important point made by my noble friend Lady Berridge about how we deal with misinformation. In an enlightening exchange I had with Health Ministers on the subject of flu vaccination, I discovered that a significant number of people working in the health service are vaccine hesitant and at least some of them are because of the scare stories that we read about vaccination. I suspect that those people will be more informed than the general public, because they work in the health service, so how we deal with misinformation is very important.
My main question, for which I am pleased to be in this House surrounded by expert lawyers, is a legal question on Amendment 188A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, about putting current case law in statute. My question is aimed at the Minister, I suspect, but if he is not able to answer it today, I would be grateful if he could write to us. Would it be helpful to put the current case law position in statute? Would that be helpful in the sense of giving Parliament’s imprimatur, saying that we are comfortable and that we think the current position is helpful? Would it in any way inhibit or prevent the development of further case law?
Again, because of what my noble friend Lady Berridge said, I am conscious that a lot of the information that people get is from online sources. Because of the fast-changing nature of the world, artificial intelligence and so forth, I would want to make sure that, in this area, evolving ways of people getting accurate information that they can rely on were able to be taken into account by case law; equally, I would want to ensure that case law could take into account information sources that are not reliable and reputable and give guidance to clinicians about how they deal with informed consent. The danger of putting some of that detail into statute is that it does take some time to update. I am looking for factual guidance about whether that is helpful for us to put into statute or whether it is better to leave it for evolving case law. It is a factual question, and I hope that the Minister can either deal with it today or write to us.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I support these amendments. The process is designed only to kill but, inevitably, as noble Lords have explained, there will be complications. People react differently to different drugs. Only with full information will the patient be able to consent. Without it, that consent cannot exist.
I have questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Why is the doctor required to discuss the nature of the substance—how it will bring about death, how it will be administered—but not to tell the patient that it may not be successful? Why must the doctor discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications? Why is there no requirement to explain and discuss the risks of complication? How can a patient give informed consent? If the noble and learned Lord does not intend to accept these amendments, can he tell the House what his intentions are?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I refer the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to Clause 12(2)(d) of the Bill, which says that the assessing doctor must
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 25”.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, that is what I just said—why must the doctor discuss with the patient their wishes in the event of complications arising? Why is there no requirement to explain and discuss the risks of complications?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Does the noble Baroness accept that, under the GMC, for any intervention that a doctor takes, they must explain to the patient the risks and the benefits and then ensure that the patient understands them? It is normal medical practice and has been written in the Bill to make sure that is the case and is written within the report.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
We are seeking to establish whether this is a regime under the health regulation or where else it lies. I think there are questions to ask.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The obligations that have just been explained refer to medical treatment, but this is not a medical treatment. The previous comments are not accurate because the normal clinician’s responsibility is one of the things that we need clarifying. Clause 12(2)(d) refers to
“their wishes in the event of complications”,
but there is no obligation to talk about the risks of complications. Those are different things—your wishes and the risks.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Is it the noble Baroness’s understanding of Clause 12(2)(d) that, while there is an obligation to discuss the person’s wishes in the event of complications arising, there is no obligation to discuss exactly what those complications could be?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
It might be helpful to add that, in normal procedure, you would explain to a patient what the complications may be but also what you will do. This Bill does not say what you will do. That is why I pointed out that somebody who is very drowsy and beginning to wake from a huge dose of lethal drugs would not be able to self-administer a further dose. This Bill is very clear that the practitioner does not administer the fatal dose; it must be done by the person themselves. Therefore, we have a bit of a gap here, because the doctor can tell them what might happen, but it does not seem that the doctor can tell them what they will do in the event of it happening and how it would be managed.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, what about the patient who says, “I’m not interested in the complications; I just want the injection as soon as possible”? At what stage is that allowable under medical practice? I have refused information from a doctor myself in the past. People have that autonomy, do they not?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Of course patients are welcome to refuse. I am slightly worried by the noble Lord’s phrase “I just want the injection”. The Bill is very clear: this is about self-administration. The doctor has to discuss with the patient how they are going to inject themselves with the lethal dose of drugs, whether they will do it with different syringes, if there is a mixture in the syringe and the complications of trying to do that. In asking the question, the noble Lord has just illustrated the nub of the problem.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, on Friday 16 January 2026, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, defended the Bill’s provision for informed consent by arguing that the existing drafting already mandates comprehensive disclosure of information. He rejected Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which would require patients to be fully informed. He argued that was unnecessary because the specific obligations listed in the Bill already ensure that the patient receives all necessary information. However, these amendments identify further gaps and the weakness in the noble and learned Lord’s reliance on the Bill’s current drafting to guarantee informed consent. Evidence of complications, lack of data, prolonged death risks—all these show that there are downsides and pitfalls, rather than simply a peaceful exit.
Proponents, some of whom we have heard today, tell us about prolonged and painful deaths from illness, but they seem to close their minds to long and potentially painful deaths for those who walk the path suggested by noble Lords. There are two mentions of complications in the Bill, but nowhere is there an explicit requirement to explain and discuss the risks of complications, despite this forming a standard part of GMC and NICE guidance on informed consent. I wonder why that is.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Will the noble Lord point out in the Bill any clause that moves away from the normal GMC duties of a doctor in terms of either consent or capacity? If the noble Lord could explain that, it would be very helpful when he continues his argument.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
I am very happy to address that matter. What the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, left out is as significant as what he said. I will come to that.
Clause 12(2)(d) requires a doctor to
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance”.
Notice that it says “the self-administration of an approved substance”. That is somewhat different to what was mentioned a few moments before—that they want the doctor giving the injection.
In Clause 39(1)(g), there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on
“responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance”,
and Clause 12(2)(c)(iv) requires the doctor to discuss
“the nature of the substance … (including how it will bring about death and how it will be administered)”—
but not that it may not be successful. The existing areas of medicine have guidance and case law on informed consent and risks, but the Bill creates an area of no guidance, no precedent and doctor confusion.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is aware that the GMC duties of a doctor are a legal requirement for a doctor to practise in the UK. The doctor therefore has to go through all those, regardless of what is in this Bill, to ensure that the patient is informed and understands the decision that is being taken by them.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
If that is so, then let us put it into the Bill. Let us be sure that it is in the Bill so there is no ambiguity. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, does not want that. That is why I am wondering—
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Unlike other Members, and unlike the mover of the previous amendment, I have given way. He did not.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Just to inform the noble Lord, I have tabled no amendments, I have made no point about what I wish or do not wish to see, and I am not the sponsor of the Bill. In relation to what the noble Lord has said about the legal requirements of the GMC, I am pointing out the duties of a doctor and how the GMC as the regulator applies those to the individual practice of a doctor in the UK.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
And I am responding by saying that if we want to be sure that there is no ambiguity whatever—we are talking about the issue of life and death and, by what was suggested earlier on, inside a matter of days this was all to be over—there should be clarity. I would have hoped that the noble Lord would want that too.
Baroness Cass (CB)
The GMC guidance would need to be amended because, at present, there is specific advice on guidance around supporting patients at end of life. It says:
“Where patients raise the issue of assisting them to end their own life, or ask for information that might encourage or assist them in doing so, respect for a patient’s autonomy cannot justify illegal action … Medical professionals should … be prepared to listen and to discuss the reasons for the patient's request”,
but
“limit any advice or information in response, to … an explanation that it is a criminal offence for anyone to encourage or assist a person to commit or attempt suicide”.
The current GMC guidance precludes all this and would therefore have to be changed should this Bill go through.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
That is very helpful, and I trust the noble Lord, who is now nodding, will take that into consideration.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The points that the two other noble Lords have made are due to guidance in 2020 which was put in place only as a consequence of the 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court which we discussed earlier. The guidance before 2020 was not what is being said now, and that is part of my point about putting this in the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Baroness. I realise that my time is up, but I draw to a close by asking noble Lords to notice the emphasis on GMC guidance. Guidance is not the law. The GMC itself states in its preamble that its guidance is intended to help doctors
“practise ethically and in line with law”—
it cannot make the law. It goes on:
“If you’re not sure how the law applies in a given situation, seek advice through local procedures, consult your defence body or professional association, or seek independent legal advice”.
It says finally:
“The professional standards describe good practice, and not every departure from them will be considered serious”.
That is equally true for NICE guidance as well.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, as a former, if somewhat historic, member of the General Medical Council, I can confirm that the GMC has no guidance relating to ending someone’s life because it is, at the present time, simply unlawful to end someone’s life.
I hope that I can try to simplify what is being discussed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that there is a need to add something, though possibly not very much, to this Bill to ensure that consent, as consent, is included. We are talking about four stages. The application is not consent; it is just an application. Capacity is measured and is not an application. The discussion described in Clause 12 is a discussion, and I say to the noble Lord opposite that it is most definitely not the obtaining of consent. Then there is the issue of obtaining consent, which includes the effect of any drugs to be used, and that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is seeking to add to this Bill.
Let me briefly give an example from my own experience. I had an extraordinarily formidable and occasionally difficult mother, and on one occasion she had a heart attack, not long before her death. She was taken into a very good cardiology unit in Blackpool, so I rushed up to Blackpool at high speed and found myself on the ward with my mother—whose eyesight and hearing were not good, but her brain was as good as any in your Lordships’ House—and a consultant. The consultant explained that he could do an operation which he had done once on a male patient aged 91, but he was prepared to try it on my mother. She was very enthusiastic to have any medical treatment that might prolong her life, which, after all, had by then lasted for only 98 and a half years.
Once we had had the discussion, the cardiologist proffered a consent form to me. My reply, which I will abbreviate, went something like, “Not likely; she is perfectly capable of consenting herself. But it must be explained to her so that she can hear it clearly. So, why don’t you sit down while I explain what you have said to me, and you correct me if anything is wrong?”
In due course, she signed the consent form and had the operation. Happily, the operation was entirely successful. Sadly, the effect of the operation gave her such a pounding heart that the rest of her bodily functions could not cope with it. She died a few weeks later. When she said to me during the period before her death, “Darling, I never thought it would end like this”, I thought to myself, thank God she signed the consent form, not me.
Consent has a conspicuous and real meaning. It requires full understanding from the patient. It can go horribly wrong, as it unfortunately did for my mother. I wish we had been able to celebrate her 100th birthday. But that element of consent, consent, consent—a bit like “education, education, education”—is not clearly set out in the Bill. It is not a major change to be made, and I would invite the noble and learned Lord to incorporate it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to establish a higher bar for reaching eligibility by requiring that informed consent be demonstrably shown. There are also amendments in the group tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor that seek to ensure that the patient has been made to understand the physiological effects of the drugs used. I will deal with each of these points, but fairly briefly, given the time.
Demonstrable consent is primarily a question of workability. It is the view of everybody, so far as I have heard, that a person must consent to receive assistance. The Bill allows assistance only if the person themselves takes the final step, which is in itself an important safeguard. But these amendments pose important questions for the Minister. What work have the Government done to date on establishing a process to ensure that all those receiving assistance under the provisions of the Bill will in fact have consented? What checks will there be on the service providing this assistance? How will Ministers and others respond to complaints or allegations of malpractice in relation to a person’s consent? All those questions touch on the key point: the practical day-to-day implementation of the Bill and ensuring that its provisions are complied with.
Most of the speeches in this group have dealt with the second issue—the amendment from my noble friend Lady Lawlor. It stands to reason that a person in receipt of assistance should be given all the information they need to ensure that they are making an informed choice. Certainly, that would seem to include the physiological effects of the drug they will take. When patients receive any drug or have any medical treatment, a doctor will explain the proper dosage and how it will affect them, and they will also advise on potential side effects. One would assume that the same level of explanation would be provided by doctors in this case, but I am interested to hear whether the Minister and/or the noble and learned Lord the promoter of the Bill will confirm that in due course.
My noble friend Lady Berridge threw me something of a curveball when she asked what the duty on a doctor is. That is a detailed question and, given the time, I will not give a very detailed answer, but it is notable that—this is an important point because it shows how things have changed over the years—if you go back, quite a long way, to the Hippocratic Corpus in the fourth to fifth centuries BCE, it advises physicians to reveal nothing to the patient of their present or, indeed, future condition,
“for many patients through this cause have taken a turn for the worse”.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the insightful debate today. As they know, the Government remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying and on the passage of this Bill. Whether and how the law in this area should change is, of course, a matter for Parliament. The Government have no major workability concerns about any amendment in this group, but these amendments introduce concepts that largely duplicate what is already in the Bill.
I speak first to Amendment 39A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This amends only Clause 1, so it introduces inconsistency with later clauses in the Bill that relate to the doctor’s assessment. Furthermore, it is currently unclear who would be responsible for determining whether the individual has the required understanding of their diagnosis and the other matters specified.
Amendments 188A and 553G, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would require registered medical practitioners to apply the principles from the Supreme Court case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire when discussing “material risks” with someone in a preliminary discussion. These amendments would have limited effect, although I note that it is not usual drafting practice to refer to specific cases in legislation, because doing so could mean that those references become outdated when case law is further developed or modified. I hope that addresses the question raised in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. For my part, I love being surrounded by lawyers—but then of course I am a north London Jew.
Amendments 43, 312 and 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seek to require that the person requesting an assisted death has a
“clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish to end their own life”.
There is no definition of “demonstrably” within the Bill. Therefore, it will likely be given its natural meaning, and this may result in little or no practical change to doctors’ consideration of the eligibility requirements. Noble Lords may wish to note that these amendments apply to the doctors’ assessments in Clauses 10 and 11, but not to the panel’s determination of eligibility in Clause 17.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seek to place a greater emphasis on the person’s understanding of the physiological effects of the substance used to end their life, and any possible side-effects. While they present no major workability concerns, the current drafting could lead to some ambiguity. For example, the amendments introduce language that is inconsistent with language elsewhere in the Bill: for example, “lethal drugs” instead of “approved substances”. These amendments could be seen as duplicative, given the existing requirements in Clause 12(2)(c)(iv) that the
“assessing doctor must … explain to and discuss with the person … the nature of the substance that is to be provided … (including how it will bring about death and how it will be administered)”.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised issues under Amendment 180, which is tabled in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. This amendment would require the assessing doctor, as part of the preliminary discussion, to explain to and discuss with the person the approved substances, the risks, complication and failure rates, and any possible contraindications in the person’s specific case. This may be seen as duplicative, as paragraphs (c)(iv) and (d) of Clause 12(2) already require the assessing doctors, as part of both the first and second assessments, to explain and discuss the nature of the approved substance and
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.
This amendment would also mean that the discussion takes place at the preliminary stage, which is earlier than the Bill currently provides for.
As noted during the exchanges on this amendment, we can look forward to a longer discussion on approved substances and their regulation at what I believe will be group 49, as things currently stand, containing Amendment 537. We look forward to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made some contributions on impact assessments. The impact assessment considers a range of scenarios and presents potential future impacts based on available evidence and international comparisons. It is clear that this does not represent a policy position from the Government. The impact assessment was developed to inform parliamentary debate and sets out what we knew based on the Bill at the time. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, it would allow for the Secretary of State to develop a robust regulatory framework for approved substances and devices used for assisted dying.
On the points from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about preparing a process for ensuring consent and on questions of malpractice, this is an issue of policy, so these questions are rightly more for the Bill’s sponsor than for the Government. However, if the Bill gets Royal Assent, the Government will obviously ensure the safe and effective delivery of service.
The last point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made was about doctors’ current duties to patients and whether they should be stated in the Bill. Again, what is in the Bill is a choice for Parliament. The noble Lord raised a number of comments, so I will commit to taking them away, reviewing Hansard and trying to address them from the Government’s perspective. I will write to the noble Lord if I have missed anything in my response.
Having said all that, as noble Lords will be aware, these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the drafting is fully workable, effective or enforceable.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I simply seek a point of clarification? I note that the Government’s position was that they did not envisage any serious operational difficulties with the substance of my amendments on the physiological effects of the drugs, but they had difficulties with substituting a different form of words for “approved” because it was not consistent with the Bill. Were that consistency there, would a Government, in seeking to implement the Bill as it is, require that the rules be brought into line, as has been suggested here, with current medical practice, to discuss and to ensure that the patient is given the full assessment of what could happen and what the risks could be?
Lord Katz (Lab)
To repeat—and I hope this helps—the Government do not see any major workability concerns. Our concern is specifically with the drafting, in that it uses different language from language that already exists in the Bill. We feel there is a risk of duplicating existing requirements in Clause 12 for the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person what approved substance would be provided and how it would bring about death. There could be the risk of that duplication, but there are no major workability issues.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this interesting and important debate. The amendments fall into four categories, all of which overlap. The first category is the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which say that the patient has to have demonstrably understood the information about diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and the drugs that will be prescribed. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, says that “demonstrably” should be put before “informed”. She also seeks to insert into the Bill what is regarded as the Montgomery v Lancashire test from the Supreme Court—that is the third one. The fourth is that a number of noble Baronesses and noble Lords have indicated that they want to be absolutely clear that the patient is properly informed of the effect of the drugs, any side-effects, any complications and what is going to happen.
I have thought very carefully, listening to the debate, whether one needs to make any changes to the Bill in order properly to reflect that the patient has to be properly informed before they make their decision. There is absolutely no doubt on anybody’s part in the course of this debate that, before any decision is made, the person has to be properly informed, and that means they have to be properly informed on prognosis, diagnosis, palliative care options and what the effect will be of the drug being administered, including side-effects, complications and what may happen in relation to complications.
As far as the Bill is concerned at the moment, Clause 1(2) says that steps need
“to be taken to establish that the person … has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
“Informed” there plainly has a meaning well acquainted to the law: that they know enough material to be able to take the decision. Enough material to take the decision in relation to prognosis and diagnosis would need to involve knowing what the level of certainty of the diagnosis is, what possible steps could be taken to alleviate the position and the various risks in relation to that, the effect of the drugs on me physiologically—the lethal drugs, if I choose to have an assisted death—what the risk of complications is and what would happen if I got complications. Without that material, it would not be “informed”. That reference to “clear, settled and informed” is then repeated four times, significantly, throughout the Bill.
First of all, in Clause 10(2), the first doctor has to be satisfied that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life. Secondly, the second doctor has to be satisfied that the patient has a clear, settled and informed wish. Thirdly, the panel has to be satisfied that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish. Fourthly, at the point that the assistance is given, the provider of the assistance, the co-ordinating doctor, must be satisfied at the time the approved substance is provided that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I made precisely this point, not about the information that is provided but about how people are getting their information, and about misinformation. We are beginning to hear of cases of ChatGPT potentially suggesting that a young person take their own life. Informed consent as the noble and learned Lord described is very much in the classical sense, as I learned. The point I made is about dealing with misinformation and malinformation. What is the duty now? I invite the noble and learned Lord to write to me, but I think—I hope—it is a developing area of law.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise; I should have answered that request. I do not want to write; I want to tell the noble Baroness the answer now. The Bill, in the places that I have indicated, says that the panel, the two doctors and the assisting doctor must be satisfied that the consent is informed. If the position is that the person who wants the assistance, or is about to get the assistance, is misinformed in the way that the noble Baroness described, that would not be informed consent. For example, having been subject to digital information that is completely wrong or misleading in what it says would not be informed consent. As time goes on, no doubt doctors and others who have to satisfy themselves that the consent is informed will have to take steps to ensure that the patient’s understanding is right.
This goes to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. Sometimes, people do not take in what you are saying. Some people take in the wrong thing. Other people are, in the back of their mind—you cannot know this—thinking of something that is completely wrong. It is for the doctor or the panel in every case to satisfy themselves. It is explicit in the Bill that consent must be informed.
Lord Deben (Con)
To clarify one issue, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, suggested that the Government should answer the question about whether they believe that these circumstances are covered. The government spokesman kindly passed it back to the noble and learned Lord, the proposer of the Bill. Could he please explain why it would not be sensible to put in the Bill precisely what would normally be expected of the doctor? This is merely because we would be much happier if that were there, and it would take it away from the problem the Minister does not want to touch himself, in case in some way he gets infected by not being independent. Why can he not just accept that, if what he says is true, putting it in the Bill does not alter it but makes people much more secure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I listened very carefully to that. I indicated previously, in relation to powers of attorney, for example, that it would be worth putting it in. First, I am not sure what “it” is. Secondly, “it” is there: the key is the words “informed consent”, which nobody has any difficulty in understanding. It may have a particular implication in a particular case, and you have to give people flexibility in relation to what they say, because it will depend on the circumstances. If I knew what “it” was, I would put it in, but it is just not that simple.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I said to the noble and learned Lord earlier that in some ways, this feels—from where I have spent a lot of my life, in the East End of London—like quite a white, middle-class conversation. Where I spend my life, one is dealing with every nationality on earth, often with lots of people whose grasp of English, in communication and really understanding what they are saying to each other, is quite complicated. I am just trying—because I am a practical person—to understand how this will work in practice. How will one ensure that, with the panel and the doctors, you will have in that process the people with the language and other capabilities and skills to really know what informed consent is? How much will it cost to ensure that all those elements are in this process?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point: how do you, in dealing with a wide range of cultures, establish that it is the informed wish of the individual that they want an assisted death? You cannot prescribe in a Bill how you would do it in every case, but there is absolutely no doubt, as far as the Bill is concerned, that the establishment of that informed wish is the basic foundation before you get there. Therefore, in each case, if it involves a different culture or a different language, that must be gone through before you can be satisfied.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of informed consent. There is a little doubt as to whether giving people lots of information, leading to an informed wish, actually encapsulates them fully understanding it. I was wondering: is the answer to this not to put in a definition of informed consent? Would that not be sensible? Then it is there in black and white. I have it here—AI is very helpful sometimes, is it not? “Informed consent is a process where a person voluntarily agrees to medical treatment, research, or a procedure after receiving and understanding all relevant information, including risks, benefits, alternatives and consequences, and they have a capacity to decide and are free from pressure”. There is a beautiful little definition that you could put straight into the definition section, and everyone would be happy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I thought carefully about that. The language concerns whether it is the person’s clear, settled and informed wish. Interestingly, the law—the Supreme Court—over a period of years constantly changes what in individual cases informed consent, or informed wish, as it is in the Bill, might be. The essence of the word “informed” is that you have enough material to make the decision. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says, and I see what AI says about it, but I think it is better just to say, “informed wish”.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter; I did not see him behind me. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been using the phrase “informed consent”—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
“Informed wish” is in the language of the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble and learned Lord has been using the phrases “informed consent” and “informed wish” as though they are definitely synonyms. I just wonder why we do not se “consent” with “informed” next to it in the Bill because, as the noble and learned Lord has let slip, informed consent is a well-understood concept. Putting it in the Bill would take away most of the doubts that some of us have expressed. What is the problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The format of the Bill asks: “Is it your wish to receive assistance?” It has to be an informed wish. It seems to me that there is no need to add in another concept—that of informed consent —when we have “informed wish”, which is perfectly adequate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
The noble and learned Lord has not responded to the question of what the doctor does if the patient develops the complication of not dying. The patient may begin to reawaken, but it is not clear at all what should happen if they say, “I want you to suffocate me. I want you to inject me with lethal drugs. I want you to force me to reingest”, or whatever. What is the doctor to do? The Bill requires the doctor to be present until either death occurs, the patient changes their mind or the procedure fails. So it would be helpful to make it clear that, in the event of a complication, the doctor is just to stand back and let things happen, because any intervention, such as clearing the patient’s airway when they are vomiting, would in fact be a resuscitative intervention.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
First, the noble Baroness is absolutely right when she says that, at that stage, no step can be taken by the doctor to kill the patient, as it were, because this is about the patient doing it. They will have to discuss it, and a whole variety of measures could be taken by a doctor in the face of complications. It is impossible for me to indicate in relation to every complication but, pursuant to Clause 12(2)(d), that is what must be discussed with the patient—subject to the important point, on which we both agree, that the doctor cannot kill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
What would happen if they were taken to court in a medical negligence case? Let us take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, where they had not explained graphically to someone who may not speak or understand English what could happen if there were a complication, but a graphic explanation was needed; otherwise, they might have failed medically to do their job.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
If they failed medically to do their job, they might be liable to a civil suit, but it is impossible to answer that question without specific facts. This Bill is placing on doctors and panels the duty to make sure that the consent to assisted dying is properly informed. If a doctor fails in that respect, you might have a situation where, for example, the thing should not have been done in the first place or was done inadequately. That might give rise to a civil suit but it does not really go to the question of whether we need to put a heavier burden, in terms of giving information, in the Bill; with respect, I think that the burden in the Bill is sufficient.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble and learned Lord just referred to a civil suit. If I remember correctly, from the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, this Bill fundamentally changes the availability of civil remedies in tort, with the additional criteria that the practitioner is protected as long as they are acting in good faith. I merely raise that for the noble and learned Lord so that the record is correct.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
May I see whether the noble and learned Lord can give me an answer on the idea of having the principles in the GMC guidance? They have come in only as a result of the Montgomery ruling in the court.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
On the first point—the reference to the immunity in respect of civil suit—I will check this but I think the immunity is with respect to criminal proceedings.
I was so distracted by the penetrating question from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that I did not quite take in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. If she would be willing to repeat it, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I was cutting across, perhaps. I think the noble and learned Lord recognised my concern, in Amendment 188A, that I wanted stuff that is in case law now to be firmly included in the Bill, because, as I pointed out to the Committee in response to somebody else, the GMC guidance changed only as a consequence of that ruling. For me, that is really important to how we make sure that patients are at the heart of this.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The guidance that was given changed in the light of the Montgomery case. I envisage that the GMC guidance would be of some significance and would change from time to time as people’s concepts change.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, it is Clause 32 and it is about criminal liability.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I want to be really clear about this, because it is so fundamental and so important. The noble and learned Lord just described Clause 12(2)(c). Sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) are not relevant to this discussion, but sub-paragraph (iv) and paragraph (d) are. They require three pieces of information in order to enable an informed wish:
“the nature of the substance … how it will bring about death and how it will be administered”,
and the person’s
“wishes in the event of complications”.
It does not require communication of what the complications might be. I simply ask him: why will he not put in the Bill a requirement to explain the complications?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My answer to that—because the answer I gave in my long and tedious speech was obviously inadequate—was that to be properly informed, you would have to say what the effect of the drugs and what the complications would be. That comes from the word “informed”. If there could be any doubt about that, the fact that you have to discuss how, physiologically, it brings about the death and you need to discuss what happens in relation to the complications puts that beyond doubt.
I will just go back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is Clause 33, not Clause 32, which is the civil liability for providing assistance. That provides that if it is done in accordance with the Act then there is no civil liability, but it needs to be done in accordance with the Act, which means it has to be the informed wish.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Could I pursue that point and connect it with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay? It is very important that we clarify this for the benefit of the medical profession. Clause 33(2)(b), which covers civil liability, says that the civil liability exemptions are not available to a doctor
“in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person”.
In the scenario described by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, what is the duty of care that the doctor owes the patient who has just not died?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is asking that in the context of giving information or of doing it negligently. The effect of Clause 33(2) is that nothing prevents the obligation on the doctor to act with reasonable care towards the patient. If, carelessly, the doctor failed to set out all the risks or maladministered the assistance, either the patient or the estate of the patient would have a claim against that doctor for negligence. There might be a dependency claim as well.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am sorry, but I think the noble and learned Lord has not quite picked up the noble Lord’s point. Of course, if the doctor does not explain it properly, or if the doctor maladministers the drug, there is liability in tort. As I understood the point being put, the doctor has explained it properly and the patient has administered the drug properly under supervision, but the patient has not died and is writhing around, for example. What is the doctor then meant to do, consistent with their duty of care to the patient? As I understand it, that is the question. I do not know the answer, but that, I think, at least is the question.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, regarding the complications, that has to be agreed in advance. I did not think that that was the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The doctor has to take reasonable care at that point. They cannot do anything to kill the patient, so they have to provide reasonable treatment to save the patient’s life at that point.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I seek a little more clarification. The noble and learned Lord just said that the doctor should act in a way to save the patient’s life. In that case, if the patient takes their lethal drugs and does not die, the doctor then stands back, lets them wake up, lets them vomit and tries to stop them fitting or clears the airway. But that has to be explicit in the Bill, so that there is no misunderstanding at all that there is any circumstance in which the doctor can then proceed to top up or further inject lethal drugs. In other countries, that is what happens if the patient has not died. Here we are talking about it being self-administered by the patient.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I think that this is absolutely clear in the Bill. Self-administration is what is required. We are discussing how to deal with complications, including whether or not the patient wants some sort of non-intervention, which is perfectly possible. If it is not specifically agreed, and the patient is suffering in some way, the role of the doctor is to save their life, because the doctor cannot kill. I do not think that there is any doubt about that position in the Bill. I do not think that this is properly covered by the terms of this amendment—I will look at it again—and so I do not think that any further change is required.
Lord Harper (Con)
I again apologise for not being a lawyer. I listened to this very carefully. I think there is a big gap here. The noble and learned Lord talked about the doctor, in effect, giving treatment to save the patient’s life. If the patient has expressed a clear and informed wish to die—I think this is the question that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked—does the doctor owe a duty of care then to save the patient’s life? I do not think that that is clear at all. Doctors, I think, are asking what it is they are supposed to do. If they do not do anything and the patient dies and then it is found that they should have done something, that is incredibly serious. Doctors are asking for it to be put beyond doubt what they should do in those circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
First of all, there is absolutely no need to apologise for not being a lawyer; some of my best friends are non-lawyers. Secondly, this very thing was very closely considered, hence the provision in the Bill to say that, if there are complications, let us try to agree in advance what we should do. We will not, I am sure, be able to cover every complication, hence the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. The answer is clear and beyond doubt—hence the reference to the need to address the question of complications—that the doctor should do what the doctor is always obliged to do, which is to save life.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
Forgive me if I have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but what about the situation in which the patient does not die, is conscious and says, “I still want to die”? What is the doctor supposed to do at that point?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The doctor cannot administer a substance. It has to be done by the patient, because the doctor has no right to kill. If the patient is saying, “No intervention”, then there will be no intervention at that particular point. The key thing about this is that it is assisting somebody to take their own life.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
The patient could say, if capable of action after having woken up from taking the poison, “I want more poison, give me some”. If that happened, what would the doctor’s duty be?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
If the person said, “I will take more poison”, then the person can do that. It is perfectly permissible.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Can I ask a question before the noble Lord sits down—eventually? There is a clause—I apologise, but I cannot remember which one it is—that says that if the patient cannot administer, push or whatever the substance, then the doctor can assist. If the patient comes around and is fitting, and has said that they want to die, is the doctor supposed to put their thumb on the switch or whatever it is and push it to make them take it themselves? It seems so uncertain what the obligation of the doctor is. For the people watching outside, this must be horrific. We are thinking about people coming round—we know there is a significant risk of them coming around—and we are not telling doctors in the Bill what they are required to do.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Again, I do not think it needs to be on the face of the Bill, because the Bill is clear about the rights of the doctor in relation to that.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Sadly, for the noble and learned Lord, I think that there are more amendments that need to be discussed, including one that I have laid. We have all discussed this on the basis that there is no one else in the room. There could be relatives there expressing a wish. We have discussed this on the basis that the patient rises and has capacity. They may not have capacity and there may be relatives in the room with enduring powers of attorney. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, shakes her head, but there are many scenarios in which there is not clarity in the Bill between the moment the drug is administered and the moment of death or it fails. I am afraid that I give the noble and learned Lord notice that I think we will have to come back to this, because the medical profession is asking for clarity.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Can I put it on record that I am not shaking my head? I think it was made clear that the power of attorney could not be used for this purpose.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
This has been another interesting debate. Possibly more important than the speeches that we all made at the beginning has been the last 40 minutes of real debate and interchange with the noble and learned Lord. I am left with the feeling that many colleagues in the Committee feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions and some uncertainties that we may need to return to.
However, I will follow the instructions of the Companion and the Government Whips, and I will not seek to respond in any detail to the many good points raised by noble Lords. I merely wish to remind the Committee that in the debate we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lady Hollins, Lady Berridge, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady O’Loan. We also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Harper, Lord McCrea, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Wilson of Tredegar and Lord Mawson. What they all had in common was that they were deeply concerned that the definition of informed consent is not strong enough in the Bill and something more needs to be added.
I think that the noble and learned Lord relied on Clause 12(2)(c)(iv). The doctors have to discuss
“the nature of the substance that is to be provided”
and, in Clause 12(2)(d),
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.
However, there is nothing in there to say that they have to discuss the complications with them or the possible side effects. The noble and learned Lord may pick me up on this if I put the wrong words into his mouth, but I think that he said that explaining the nature of the substance could possibly—I think that he used that word—include discussing the possibility of complications and side effects.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
If the noble Lord is suggesting that I said “possibly”, meaning that you might have to say what the complications were, if there were complications or the threat of complications, I did not say that. I said that if there was the prospect of complications, you would have to say.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think that I will have to check the record, as I firmly remember the noble and learned Lord using the word “possible”; it will be “possible” to discuss this. I think that most noble Lords who have spoken do not want the possibility of it being discussed but the certainty of it being discussed, and that may require an amendment to this part of the Bill.
Many noble Lords made the point that you cannot get any NHS treatment or any medical treatment these days unless the doctor takes elaborate steps to explain the consequences, the downsides and things that could possibly go wrong. That extends through all aspects of health. Two days ago, I went down Victoria Street to buy a packet of Night Nurse in Boots. I was interrogated: “Have you taken this medication before, are you taking other medication with it, are you aware it can make you drowsy?”—they were practically asking, “Are you going to fly a jet plane after this?” It goes to that extent in selling drugs. Noble Lords were concerned that, when people are getting treatment to help cure them, they get every single thing explained, but they would not get it explained to them in detail if it is a treatment to kill them.
Some may say, “What does it matter? If you’re going to take a drug that will kill you, why do you need to know the side-effects?” Well, you do not need to know the long-term side-effects, of course, but you do need to know any side-effects the drugs may have. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, NICE guidelines say that no drug can be supplied unless it is approved by NICE. But NICE approves drugs to treat you; it does not approve a lethal dose. We have seen in the United States death row places where people are given a cocktail of drugs. In the old days, it was straightforward: it was a drug that could kill you. Now, they are given drugs that, taken individually, can help your life, but, when given in combination to put someone to sleep, slow the heart and all the other things, those cocktails eventually kill them. We have heard horrendous stories of the cocktails not working and the person waking up. Noble Lords have raised questions about what would happen if a patient who is given a lethal cocktail or drug wakes up; we just do not know what the consequences would be.
Lord Blencathra
“(1A) A person is only eligible for assistance under this Act if their wish to end their life is principally attributable to the symptoms, suffering or prognosis of the terminal illness.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to narrow eligibility for assistance to illness-related motives.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak relatively briefly to the amendments in this group. I degrouped them for a technical reason. They are quite narrowly drawn. I know there is a group coming up, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, that is wider ranging and more important than mine. If any noble Lord wishes to speak on the principle of these amendments, they might be better off waiting for the noble Baroness’s group.
The purpose of my Amendment 39B is to ensure that a person who wishes to die is driven by their illness, not by poverty, loneliness, lack of care or other remedial pressures. This would restore the link between the justification for the Bill and its operation. The political case for assisted dying has always been framed around unbearable physical suffering caused by terminal illness, yet the Bill contains no requirement that the person’s motivation must arise from that illness. Without this amendment, the Bill becomes a general choice in adversity scheme, where any reason—financial distress, lack of care, fear of being a burden—can drive the decision.
The noble and learned Lord has now explicitly said:
“I am strongly against saying poor people should not have that choice”.—[Official Report, 16/1/26; col. 2020.]
That is an admission that the Bill permits assisted death for reasons of poverty. My amendment would correct that. It would ensure that the motivation must be principally attributable to the illness itself, not to the state’s failure to provide care, housing or support. This is not about denying autonomy; it is about ensuring that autonomy is real. A decision driven by poverty or abandonment is not a free choice. The amendment would ensure that the Bill remains what the public believe it to be: a response to suffering caused by terminal illness, not a response to social failure.
My Amendment 39C would draw a clear line: financial distress, lack of housing or lack of social support cannot be the primary motivations for an assisted death. Without this safeguard, the Bill risks becoming a mechanism by which poor and unsupported people are offered death instead of help. The Bill is presented to the public as a response to the unbearable physical suffering caused by terminal illness, yet it contains no requirement that the person’s motivation must arise from that illness. Without these amendments, the Bill permits assisted death for a whole host of reasons that Parliament never intended, such as loneliness, poverty, lack of housing, lack of care or feeling like a burden on the state or your dependants.
The noble and learned Lord has now accepted that these motivations are valid choices. That is a dramatic shift from his own 2012 commission, which said that motivations were never legitimate and that safeguards must prevent them. Peers are entitled to ask what has changed other than the political need to keep the Bill workable. International evidence shows that non-medical motivations dominate assisted dying requests. Pain is not the primary driver. We hear that being a burden is a driver, as is the loss of autonomy. Parliament must decide whether it is comfortable legislating for that.
Finally, these amendments ensure that asking “why” has consequences. If the answer is poverty, loneliness or lack of care, the response should be support, not a lethal prescription. These amendments restore coherence, safeguard autonomy and prevent the Bill from becoming a general choice in adversity scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
In the interests of being brief, rather than repeating everything that my noble friend said, I look forward to the answers from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Minister.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments. I note his wish to keep this brief so that we can move on to a later group to discuss the issues that he raises in greater breadth.
Amendment 39C seeks to exclude anyone whose primary motivations for the request for an assisted death are financial concerns, lack of housing or lack of social support. This would require someone to establish the motivations of a person requesting an assisted death. It is not clear who would make this assessment or how they would make it. It is also unclear how a number of the phrases in the amendment are meant to be interpreted and assessed, including “financial concerns”, “lack of housing” or “lack of social support”, because these terms are not defined. The amendment also conflicts with later provisions of the Bill setting out how eligibility is assessed in more detail, which would cause confusion. If passed, considerable further policy and drafting work would need to be done to clarify the intent.
In the spirit of brevity, I make no comment on the other amendment in this group. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the amendment has not had technical drafting support from officials.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for how this has been dealt with. We have discussed this a lot, at Second Reading and in Committee. I have made clear that, while suffering may very often be the cause of somebody wanting an assisted death, it is not the trigger for it as a legal requirement. Why people want to end their life in the context of a terminal illness is for them to decide. The effect of these amendments is that a person is entitled to an assisted death only if the reasons for them wanting the assisted death are the symptoms, suffering or prognosis of the terminal illness. I am not in favour of inquiring as to precisely what is the cause. Severe misery may well be the cause in the context of a terminal illness. In my view, this provision would unduly limit the entitlement to an assisted death, so I am against these amendments because they go right against the principle of the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord is utterly wrong in his last pronouncement. Misery should not be a reason for an assisted death. The misery might be able to be removed. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Moylan stated that many people do not actually want to die; they want the things that are causing the feeling to be removed. They want better housing, they want better relationships with their family, they wish their love life was better or they want out of total misery. The noble and learned Lord is utterly wrong in seeming to extend the reason for dying beyond the severity of the terminal illness.
We will probably discuss this better and in more detail in the next group of amendments, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Berger
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Berger would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if their clear, settled and informed wish to end their life is because of their terminal illness and not for any other reason.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 44, 313, 341, 452, 511 and 580 in my name, which are distinct from the group that we have just addressed in a very quick fashion but are a variation on the same discussion. My amendments seek to make a simple but substantive clarification to the Bill, which is that assistance in ending life should be available only where a person’s clear, settled and informed wish to die arises because of their terminal illness, not for any other reason.
As drafted, not only does the Bill not require a causal link between a person’s terminal illness and their request for an assisted death, but it does not actually specify any reason at all. That is a significant difference from assisted dying laws in many other jurisdictions, and that includes some of the countries whose laws have been presented to us as comparable to the Bill and as proof that we can have confidence in it.
Under New Zealand’s End of Life Choice Act 2019, not only must a person have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months but they must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and capability and be experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable. In Spain, which we are told is a model for the new voluntary assisted dying panels, the requirement for an assisted death in Spanish law is intolerable suffering.
By contrast, our panel will not have to investigate or even ask why the person has chosen this route, as long as they appear to mean it. As long as the person fulfils the other requirements, medical professionals and the panel will not be expected to ask whether the person may be motivated not by the disease itself but by, for example, the shock and despair that follows a terminal diagnosis, the stress and anxiety that come with the cost of care, the sense of guilt of being a burden on family and partners, or the family breakdown that sadly can often happen next. Perhaps the person has previously struggled with suicidal ideation even before they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. None of these examples would rule the person out of eligibility under the Bill.
That is a profoundly concerning weakness in the Bill’s construction, and one that fundamentally undermines the claim that it has “the world’s strongest safeguards”. It does not have one of the most common and obvious safeguards there is, which rightly exists in other countries. Indeed, the 2012 Commission on Assisted Dying, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, came to the conclusion that
“it is essential that any future system should contain safeguards designed to ensure, as much as possible, that any decision to seek an assisted suicide is a genuinely voluntary and autonomous choice, not influenced by another person’s wishes, or by constrained social circumstances, such as lack of access to adequate end of life care and support”.
My amendments go to the heart of the balance that the Bill is trying to strike and which many of us fear may not be possible: that is, to allow dying people to decide when to end their lives but without taking any steps towards the encouragement or normalisation of suicide. This is not a theoretical concern. Make no mistake, the demand for assisted dying for other reasons does exist, and will be seen all too clearly if the Bill passes as drafted. In jurisdictions that have introduced assisted dying without a requirement for a terminal illness at all, or which have afterwards expanded beyond it, there are documented cases of people seeking to end their lives not because they were dying but because they could not access the care, housing or social support they needed to live well. That cannot be the path that we take here.
We must ensure that our law is rooted in compassion, yes, but also in moral clarity about the need to prevent suicide. Great strides have been made in doing that in recent years, both within the medical profession and in other public services. In the Select Committee on the Bill, we heard about the importance of this from witnesses, including the chief executive of the mental health charity Mind, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We must have confidence that, if the Bill passes, it will not be at the cost of that vital progress.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 44, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and I thank her for tabling it. Today is an especially important day for me, because it marks exactly 30 years to the day since I had emergency neurosurgery in a desperate attempt to save my life following a terminal diagnosis of only six months. My neurosurgeon could not give me odds on survival, never mind recovery, so the outcome was definitely not a done deal.
The need for this amendment underlines why it is so important that no one assumes that this appallingly drafted Bill is a done deal, either. We keep being told by the Bill’s supporters that it is about people who are already dying. If that is the case, I assume that the amendment will meet with their enthusiastic support, given that it would make incontrovertibly clear in the Bill that a person’s motivation for seeking an assisted death is their terminal illness. Otherwise, as last Friday’s debate showed, we could be in the extremely dangerous situation of other motivations coming into play, such as feeling like a burden; living with a mental disorder, including depression; or living with a disability other than the terminal illness.
In her powerful speech of 12 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, said:
“We do not live in a society where everyone is equally able to make decisions without being constrained by external influences, whether that is in the form of other people or simply follows from one’s own life circumstances”.—[Official Report, 12/12/25; col. 495.]
How right she was.
There was a time when I imagine the noble and learned Lord would have agreed with her, given that own his commission ruled that it was essential to ensure that a decision was not influenced by
“self-imposed pressures that could result from”
people
“feeling themselves to be a burden”.
It is worth asking the question of what has changed in that time. Well, the pressures on the NHS have increased, access to GPs has massively decreased and house prices have rocketed, making owning a home a distant dream for many young people and, thus, making the inheritance from granny even more valuable. Meanwhile, social care costs have gone through the roof, thereby devaluing granny’s legacy—and, of course, as your Lordships’ House highlighted only two days ago, the insidious impact of social media has had an alarming effect on society and, many would argue, on some of its values.
So will the noble and learned Lord agree in his closing remarks that, taken together, these factors only serve to make the case even more compelling for there being a specific requirement in the Bill that the sole reason people can seek an assisted death is their terminal illness? If he does not, let him say so. To his credit, in 2012, he was clear about the danger of someone feeling a burden, and I admire his honesty and clarity then. Will he take the opportunity today to be equally honest and clear and confirm that, in changing his mind, he has moved from viewing burden as a pressure to be safeguarded against to instead viewing it as a legitimate basis of a rational choice to be facilitated? Let me say to the noble and learned Lord that I may not agree with him, but I would applaud his determination to address the question directly.
The question posed by this amendment cannot be dodged, because it goes to the heart of the Bill. Indeed, failing to accept the amendment makes sense only if there is an ulterior motive in rejecting it. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to reply, could give the Committee a categorical assurance that there is absolutely no intention by the drafters and promoters of the Bill that anyone should ever be able to cite the Bill as the grounds for saying at a later stage, “On what logical basis would we deny that same choice—assisted dying—to people with depression or those who are chronically ill, for example?” Indeed, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that accepting this amendment would actually help him, at least in part, to dispel the fears of those who suspect that, if autonomy rather than motivation is the metric that really matters here, the Bill would contain the seeds for removing barriers to a Canada-style assisted-dying free-for-all in years to come? After all, if motivation is irrelevant, how could it not?
In conclusion, the noble Baroness does the Committee a great service, because her simple amendment hits the nail on the head. It also indirectly exposes a battle that is under way for the soul of her great party. Its values, not least its commitment to disability rights, for which I have so much respect, cannot simply be suspended for the duration of this Bill. There are hard choices to be made here and now. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will recognise the significance of this amendment and choose to accept it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 313. My concern is the whole question of misdiagnosis. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin has addressed the fact that he was diagnosed with a terminal illness some time ago. One assumption running through this Bill and through the amendments—I apologise to my noble friends who put down these amendments—is that the medical diagnosis of somebody approaching death is faultless. We know from endless examples given by your Lordships in this Chamber that that is not actually the case. There are a large number of incidents when the medics get it completely wrong. I would like to address the question of them quite innocently getting it wrong. I will deal with more malicious misdiagnosis in later amendments.
The whole basis on which we are discussing this Bill is that there has been a medical diagnosis, which must hold as the whole basis on which assisted dying takes place. We know, however, that all too often people live on for quite a long time. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made the point that people have lived on with diagnoses that they were going to die after six months. My wife’s uncle, a distinguished diplomat, was given six months to live and died 18 months later. So much fault is the case here that we should be very worried about how much we are going to lean on medical diagnosis as a basis for judging that somebody should be allowed to die.
Earlier on in the debate, some weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Polak described how he was given six months to live. He is not with us, but I would not describe him as a delicate flower. I would also say that he is probably not prone to bouts of depression or that sort of thing either, but let us hypothesise—
Lord Harper (Con)
Just for the avoidance of doubt for anyone watching these proceedings, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, is no longer present in the Chamber, but he is very much still with us.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lord Harper is absolutely right: he is still with us, but he is absent for the moment. It might have been that, when he was given his diagnosis that he had six months to live, he was told that his final months would be very grim indeed and he would suffer terribly. He might, if this Bill had been in place, have made the decision to end his life. That was 32 years ago and my noble friend Lord Polak is actually pretty fit and doing a good job in your Lordships’ House. So we have to question medical diagnosis in this case.
I am very concerned and would like to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, what he thinks about the problems of wrong diagnosis. I am old enough to remember that there was a time when we had capital punishment in this country. One of the reasons why it was abolished was because of the miscarriages of justice and the number of people who were hanged when they were innocent. That was a very serious lever used to get rid of capital punishment. What percentage of misdiagnosis of terminal illness would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, think would be right before he thought about whether the whole basis of this Bill was to be questioned? I do not think we have any statistics on misdiagnosis—maybe he has some—but it really undermines the whole basis of this Bill if we have doctors who quite innocently say that they think a person has only six months to live but then find that they have not and they live on much longer. This is a matter of tremendous concern to people in this country.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It might be helpful, in the context of this conversation, for noble Lords to be aware that the data that the Department for Work and Pensions has on people who are in receipt of a benefit that comes during the six months towards the end of life shows that 23% of people who were given a six-month prognosis are still alive three years later.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, that is 23% of people who die well beyond the six-month sentence they have been given. That is an extraordinarily large figure, and I am grateful to her for it. I think that makes us question the whole basis of this Bill which is talking about medical diagnosis that gives people a limited life but turns out to be wrong. This could be very disturbing, if we are going to go ahead on the basis of information that could be wrong in quite as many cases as that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord asked about data. During the Select Committee that was held on Lord Joffe’s Bill on this subject, the Royal College of Pathologists told us in evidence that, at post-mortem, one in 20 people were found to have died from something different to what was written on the death certificate. That underlines the point that he makes: errors in diagnosis are the fundamental problem, happen quite often and result in the wrong treatment being given—not through malpractice, but just because medicine is a very inexact science.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. That just illustrates my point that misdiagnosis can very easily be done, and we are putting an enormous weight on it in this Bill and it can so often be wrong. We should be very disturbed and concerned about that because it means that we may be passing legislation which is based on faulty information.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this may be a convenient point to speak to two amendments in my name in this group. My Amendment 320ZA complements Amendments 39B and 39C, which I briefly touched on in the last debate, by making explicit that non-medical motivations cannot drive an assisted death. It draws a distinct line between medical suffering and social abandonment. International evidence shows that non-medical motivations dominate assisted dying requests. In Oregon, “being a burden” is cited by nearly half of all applicants. Parliament must decide whether it is comfortable legislating for that. This amendment ensures that England and Wales do not drift into a model in which existential distress, loneliness or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, “sheer misery” or lack of care become accepted reasons for state-facilitated death. It also responds directly to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which warned that subtle pressures from lack of services can drive people prematurely towards death. This amendment ensures those pressures are addressed, not endorsed.
My other Amendment 332AA operationalises the “ask why” concession. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said he is “attracted” to requiring clinicians to ask why a person wants to die but unless the answer has consequences, the question is meaningless. This amendment ensures that when the answer is, “I am a burden” or “I cannot afford care,” or “I am alone”, “I am fed up” or “I am miserable”, the process pauses and support is provided. It reflects the evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Geriatrics Society, both of which emphasise the need for holistic assessment. It ensures that treatable depression, unmet care needs or social pressures are addressed before an irreversible decision is made. This is safeguarding, not obstruction. It ensures that assisted death is not used as a substitute for care.
My amendments matter because, first, they protect genuine choice. A decision driven by lack of heating, housing or social care is not the same as one driven by intractable physical decline. These amendments stop the law becoming a backdoor response to social failure.
Secondly, I believe they are a practical safeguard, not a veto. This is not a blanket ban; it is a procedural pause to address fixable problems—social support, benefits, palliative referrals—before a final medical judgment is made. Thirdly, clinicians need clarity. Doctors must be able to ask why and act on the answer. These amendments would give them a clear statutory duty to do so, reducing moral and legal ambiguity. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, truly believes this Bill is about free, informed choice, will he oppose leaving people to die because the state failed to provide basic support or will he back these modest, targeted safeguards?
Lord Markham (Con)
The main point here is that, by definition, you are eligible for assisted death only if you have been diagnosed to be within six months of the end of your life through a terminal illness. That is the reason that you are applying for an assisted death. That is motivation for doing it, because clearly it is not like those people want to die. We have talked to many people, and I am sure a lot of people have, and they desperately do not want to be in this situation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am very sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but even the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, has been very clear in saying that the six-month prognosis is a trigger that gives you admission to the process, if you like, but it does not have to be the reason, so it is not by definition the case that if you have the prognosis, that must be the reason. They are two quite different concepts.
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said, these are not people who want to die; they are people who absolutely want to live. The only reason they are entering into this process, and the only reason they would be eligible—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I completely sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that these people do not want to die; they want to live. Would he then agree with some of the amendments that I tabled last week and spoke on? If, for example, they want to die and are then diagnosed with a terminal illness, that would be relevant to not allowing them into the process; that is, they want to die, and then the trigger of terminal illness allows the state-sanctioned administration of lethal drugs so that they can commit suicide, which is why people have raised problems about suicide ideation and mental illness. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will back some of the amendments on safeguarding that I tabled.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is talking about a slightly different circumstance where there are prior reasons, which could be mental health or other reasons, and why that could be a cause. What we are talking about here is basically the criterion on which you can first be assessed for assisted dying, which is, of course, that you have been diagnosed in the first place. To the point that, of course, people might then live longer, my experience is that they are delighted by that. Just because they have been assessed as being able to have assisted dying does not mean that they will take the medication. Again, evidence shows strongly that they will take the medication only right near the end when the pain, the loss of dignity or whatever the reason is becomes unbearable. My experience is that those people would be delighted if it was a misdiagnosis, and if they are fortunate enough to be living 30 years later, as per some of these examples, that would be fantastic. Of course, they will not have taken the medication. The point is that they take it only right at the end where there is no other choice, so to speak.
Within that, accepting that these are the people we are talking about, of course there are all sorts of different motivations why, when they are unfortunately at the point where they are looking at such a death, they might want to go ahead with it. Research shows that there are multiple reasons; it is impossible to put it down to just one. Loss of autonomy, less ability to engage in enjoyable activities, loss of dignity, loss of control of bodily functions, burden, inadequate pain relief or finances are all part of the reasons. They are all part of the research, and, on average, you will find that there are three or four reasons to do it.
So it is quite wrong to say, “No, we’ll only allow you to go ahead with this if you only have that single motivation”. As I said before, they would rather not be there in the first place, but given that they are in that unfortunate circumstance, surely they should be allowed the choice of why they wish to die.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and I will not repeat what she said. She opened the debate on these amendments with superb clarity, characteristic of her contributions to your Lordships’ House.
I have been shocked by what I have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I ask him just to reflect on two contributions made earlier in this afternoon’s session by my noble friend Lord Mawson, who, from his own experience, described what happens in poorer neighbourhoods, which he has experienced very directly, in which people face different problems and are more likely to want to die for reasons to which their terminal illness is just an ancillary point.
I have been involved in these debates since I came into your Lordships’ House at least. I was on the Joffe Bill Committee with my noble friend Lady Finlay. In the Committee on that Bill, in all the other Bills I can remember since, and particularly in all the case law that I have followed over the years—mostly very celebrated cases—the purpose of asking for assisted suicide has been to alleviate terrible suffering. That has been the sole purpose for demanding a change in the law: to alleviate terrible suffering. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord wishes to achieve anything different from that. It is just that it does not say in the Bill that the purpose of having assisted suicide should be to alleviate terrible suffering.
Of course, there may be other issues at work in that person’s mind when they ask for assisted suicide—we cannot read every synapse in their brain—but we are here to legislate to save people from terrible suffering, if the Bill is to pass. I am very concerned that the Bill should be amended so that the capability to have assisted suicide does not arise as an opportunity to commit suicide. The reason to commit suicide, the absolute cause, should be the intolerable suffering.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Would the noble Lord accept, however, that it would be deeply unfair if somebody whose major wish was to end their terminal illness, and the pain and intolerable suffering that was coming with it, was to be denied that right because they were also concerned about numerous other things? Very few people have a perfect life, even when they are close to death. To deny that person the right to an assisted death because they might have concerns beyond their suffering would seem to be cruel in the extreme.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I do not think there is much difference between what I am saying and what my noble friend is saying. I am saying that, if this law is passed, people should be able to obtain assisted suicide because of intolerable suffering. I am not seeking to exclude other matters that might be in their mind, but the cause of asking for assisted suicide should be that suffering. The medical profession, lawyers and judges in particular—if we have the judicial option rather than the panel option—are perfectly capable of reaching a decision on the facts that would lead to the appropriate conclusion.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I was only going to say to the noble Lord that, as I am sure he will remember, I too was a member of those earlier Select Committees. I am sure in that context he will remember that the arguments, discussions and vagueness, frankly, about how one would ever define “intolerable suffering” in a legal sense, or an Act of Parliament, were even more intense than the ones we are having today. That was because there is even more subjectivity about the concept of “intolerable suffering” than there is about any other.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, much as I admire her contributions to this House. I believe that, as a legal concept, what I am suggesting is absolutely clear and could be defined properly if we were to use the courts to make the determinations.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is the point where we come to the heart of the reason why I find this Bill so difficult. I know what sort of society I have spent my life trying to produce and work for: a society that cares, particularly for the vulnerable. I was accused by the noble Baroness of being patronising the other day. If it is patronising to defend the vulnerable, I plead guilty.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I must respond to that. I certainly did not accuse the noble Lord of being patronising. I said that I thought there were difficulties in health policy when we accepted some of the old—and, now, more old-fashioned—concepts in which the medical profession seemed to be patronising. I was not referring to parliamentarians.
Lord Deben (Con)
I will not take it, therefore, as I did on the occasion when she mentioned it.
What I want to say to the Committee is simply this: many people in many institutions will be tempted to look at the price of death as against the price of life for those who are very seriously ill. There is no doubt at all that all the countries that have already enacted laws of this kind have found this to be a problem. They have all found the difficulty that, for people who have been given about six months to live—even if that is a false diagnosis—there is a tendency to say, “Well, they’re going to die anyway”. A number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses who support this Bill have said that.
I want a society that cares about those people right to their last moment in which they die. That is what I think we are here to do. I hope that does not sound too sentimental, but this is about the difference between kindness and love. Love is something with a backbone that cares for people right to the end and makes sure that they do not feel a burden. We cannot do that for everybody, but the trouble with this particular Bill is that it does not make it absolute and determined that we do look after people and that we find out whether they feel a burden and help them not to feel a burden.
Any of us who has had loved ones who are ill know that, even if they are not seriously ill, the very first thing they do is feel a burden—a burden on their spouses and on other people. That is what decent people do. Other decent people spend their time trying to make sure that they do not feel a burden. Other decent people try to see what is at the heart of their misery—that is the phrase that is used. We should be here to try to remove the misery from people in their last six months, just as we should throughout the whole of their lives. Those who are proposing this Bill seem so committed to getting it through somehow that they think we must not in fact consider what the rest of society is.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, hopes to interrupt me, but, before she does, I will just say this. I am not one of those Conservatives who believes in the kind of free market operation where you do not deal with things at all. I am, in that sense, a socialist; I believe in the individual in society. The whole problem with this emphasis on autonomy is that it is not acceptable unless you see the individual in society. The trouble with the Bill is that it tempts those who find it more convenient to allow people to kill themselves because it is more expensive for them to continue to live.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I was not going to interrupt the noble Lord, but his last remark does lead me to interrupt him. I do not think there is anybody who backs the Bill because they think it is more expensive for people to continue to be treated. Nor do I think it is the case that those people who back the Bill are in some way unaware of the societal context in which people live and die. We are all aware of that.
Moreover, some of the comments from those who oppose the Bill or are trying to introduce more amendments to it neglect the fact that most doctors—nobody is perfect, of course, but most doctors—are fully aware of their obligations as members of society and of a caring profession. They spend a lot of time trying to help and advise their patients not just about their immediate medical needs but their other needs. It is certainly the case that most general practitioners will help a patient who is suffering because of poverty. They will find ways in which they can access funding and support the patient in terms of their worries about being a burden. So I do not think anybody who supports this Bill suggests for one moment that we should accept that a patient who feels they are a burden should die just for that reason. The reason they do think they should die, if they want to, is that their suffering is intolerable. That is what lies behind those who back this Bill’s motivation.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that and understand that there is nothing in what we are saying which suggests that we simply want people to be able to die because they need to be autonomous. We want them to have the choice to be able to die, if that is indeed their choice and if the circumstances which they are in are such that their suffering is enormous. Most of us who back the Bill have experienced this in our own lives and seen what happens in those circumstances. I have sometimes wondered, in listening—I have done a lot of listening and not much speaking on this Bill—that some of the people who raise all these amendments have not had the experience of seeing the terrible suffering of people who have already been diagnosed as terminally ill.
Lord Deben (Con)
I agree with everything that the noble Baroness said. That is not what I was saying. I was saying that many people, in seeking to get the Bill through, are not facing up to the fact that there are many people in society who will see this as an opportunity to find the better thing for them if their old grandmother decides to take her own life.
Some of us have spent many years working—albeit not as effectively as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—among people who, frankly, are wonderful and have dealt with huge difficulties in their lives. But we have also found people who would be happy for the death of their grandmother for a matter of a very few pounds—and if their grandmother has a house worth £200,000, the situation becomes much clearer. They know what they want and they know what the pressure would be. In asking whether people have seen that, I must say to the noble Baroness that I have seen that—more times than I would really like to go through with her. Those of us who have worked all our lives in those circumstances—I think the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, will support me—will recognise that that is the case.
All I am saying about this amendment is that it helps to protect people against that, and it does so by saying that we, as a society, should be concerned that, if somebody thinks they ought to end their own life, even if they have only six months to live, because their housing is so bad, because they feel a burden to their family, or because they think the National Health Service should not be spending the money on them, we ought to do what is necessary to remove that reason. If, because of intolerable pain, they still wish to end their life, the Bill will be a proper means of doing it.
I will end with a simple point. The noble and learned Lord has explained why he does not want a reference to intolerable pain in the Bill itself. I understand that. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, has produced this answer, which is crucial not just because of the sort of society in which we live but because, if you do a public opinion poll, you see that people think that this Bill is about allowing people in intolerable pain to end their life. But it is not about that. What the noble Baroness is trying to do is to make sure that it is about that and that we do not become a society for which this becomes the cheaper way or the way in which people can use their influence to gain their own ends. The best way to add to that support is to support what she said. It is also a way for us, as a House, to say to the world that we are not concerned with this assisted suicide for any reason other than as an autonomous choice about real, terrible suffering.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, we know that people may have many of the problems that proponents of the Bill have described as reasonable justifications for why someone may want to end their life. They may already be a burden, as they see it, or incontinent, or under financial duress, or have pain from arthritis, or have a whole host of other things going on in their life. They may have fallen out with members of their family. There is a multitude of things. We have heard endlessly about that. Then, randomly, they get this ticket—the ticket that nobody wants—that says that they have only six months to live. Prognostic predictions such as that are based on averages, and the shocking fact, as we know, is that 50% of people are above average, so there will be a huge range. If you have been given a six-month prognosis, it could be anything from one month to 32 years, as we have heard.
To say that that is your ticket to be allowed to have an assisted death, and then completely disconnect that fact from the reasons for your assisted death, makes no sense at all. There is no internal logic in that. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, is brilliant in getting us past the intolerable suffering to something that is plausible, tangible and clear. As I have said previously, doctors make judgments all the time. The judgment about the six-month rule is hugely inaccurate, as I have just described, but the one thing that the doctor can usefully do is determine whether there is plausibility that the symptoms that are distressing the patient are related to that illness. They do not have to be the only reason; there can be all those other factors going on. But if there is plausibility that there are symptoms related to that illness—be it pain, breathlessness, incontinence or whatever else happens to be distressing to that individual—that seems to me to be acceptable. However, personally, I would prefer it to be limited to pain, breathlessness and things that may not be amenable to treatment.
None the less, that still gives the doctor some yardstick to determine that this is not just about coercion, even some internally driven coercion that the patient feels that it is their job to end their life. Anything else, and you are asking for somebody to make a judgment that is just not feasible. I cannot see—I have said this before —how it is feasible to assess whether the patient is feeling coerced in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, described in earlier discussions just because of the tutting and the head shaking at having to bring something to the patient or the person once again. This would give us something that is concrete, clear and defensible, which I think is what the public believe this Bill to be about.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I 100% support the motive behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and others have just said, but my question is this: will it make any difference? If you want an assisted death, would you not be able to get it simply by saying that it is related to your terminal illness? You have your terminal illness and you have the prognosis, and you will therefore be advised by anybody who wants to assist you in your death that that is what you must say. How is this therefore a protection for the problem that we are discussing?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in this group of amendments—the two parts of it, if you like—I support the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, has brought forward, which sets out that the primary motivation for seeking assisted death is terminal illness. That is important because, otherwise, the terminal illness is simply a trigger.
One reason why I think this is important is something that I am very nervous about. I am not saying, by the way, that this is the motivation of the sponsor of the Bill, but he will be aware that many people think that this Bill is just a first step—there are campaigners outside this House who absolutely think that. One problem with the way that it is drafted at the moment is that, because the terminal illness is simply a trigger, it would be very simple, if this Bill were on the statute book, to simply remove that qualification, so that the rest of the structure and processes in the Bill would then allow anybody for any reason, without having a terminal illness, to seek an assisted suicide. With the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, suggests—that the reason why you are seeking an assisted suicide is your terminal illness—then you could not do that. If you were to remove the terminal illness piece, there would be no motivation, so you would have to do a lot more work. Those of us who are nervous about this Bill as a Trojan horse would be more reassured if that motivation were in place.
The second part to this goes to what my noble friend Lord Deben said about what the public think that this is about. If we look at the opinion polling on what the public think should be reasons why someone should be able to seek assisted suicide, the powerful reasons that many members of the public—not all, but significant numbers—support is to relieve suffering and pain. People are broadly compassionate and think that that is a good idea. What they do not support is people being able to seek assistance to kill themselves because they are poor or for other reasons. They think that that is a terrible reason. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and other amendments in this group would more closely align the way the Bill is structured and what it would do with what many members of the public think that it should do.
I also support Amendment 320ZA from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which explicitly says that the purpose of seeking assisted suicide cannot be various societal factors, such as housing or financial circumstances. That is important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I had an exchange last week where he made it very clear that he thinks that, if those things are the drivers for you wanting to end your life, he is okay with that. I am not, and the polling evidence is that the public are not okay with that either.
Choices should be proper choices. My noble friend Lord Deben set out very well the sort of society that I think people want to see. If people want to end their life because of something not to do with their terminal illness or their pain or their suffering—because they do not have enough money or they have poor housing, or they have other things that they are not happy about—then those things are remediable. They may be expensive, but they are fixable and we can do something about them. I want to live in a society where we do something about them and we make people’s lives better—even if it is only for the last few months of their life, that is still worth doing.
My noble friend Lord Deben is right. He is not saying that the sponsor or those who support this Bill are thinking like this, but he is absolutely right that people make decisions all the time based on weighing up financial consequences. Noble Lords have talked about NICE today. When it assesses approving drugs, NICE looks at quality adjusted life years against the price of the drugs to the health service. It literally weighs up how much valuable quality life you are buying versus how much money we are spending. My worry is that, if you do not exclude people wishing to end their lives for these other reasons, we will get ourselves in a terrible place where we are not prepared to spend the money on improving people’s lives but rushing them towards ending their life in a way that is not necessary.
That is a big choice for Parliament to make and there are different views. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, set out his view last week. I have set out mine and my noble friend Lord Deben has set out his—we are in agreement. That is a decision for the House. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and make the decision that you can only seek assisted suicide if it is because of your terminal illness, not because of your other circumstances. I think that that is the right sort of society we would be creating. The package of amendments in this group would improve the Bill. They would also reassure many people who are concerned about the Bill to not be concerned about it, which would be helpful for everybody. I commend them to noble Lords.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the society that we are seeking to have. We agree on so many things. We are on different Benches, but we agree on many things. However, the pre-eminent reason for this Bill is a terminal illness for six months. I understand what the noble Lord opposite is saying—that one cannot be sure—but we are talking about six months. As other noble Lords have said, one might aspire to have access to the drugs so that one could take one’s life if one had a terminal illness and it was thought that it was going to last for six months, but it does not mean to say that people are going to use them. It is important to remember that all the time. Six months and a terminal illness is the important thing to keep in the forefront of our minds at all times.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has prompted me to return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Cass, because the chance of being right about six months has been estimated at around 48%. It is just plucked out of the air. It depends on the individual, how their body responds to whatever disease it is and lots of other factors. I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said that these are people who want to live. They should be having access to specialist palliative care to maintain their quality of life as high as possible, yet we have huge gaps in this country.
Lord Markham (Con)
I was making the point that those people—I am looking at some in that category in this very Room, I believe—want to live for the rest of their natural life for as long as possible. That is what they really want. They desperately do not want to be diagnosed with a terminal illness.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I have looked after thousands and thousands of patients, and I have to say that I have never come across someone who said they wanted to be terminally ill and to have their metastases or whatever. No, people want to live well but accept that death is a natural part of life. That is quite different from talking about deciding that someone is going to be given lethal drugs to foreshorten their life.
The benefit of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, is that they fit fair and square with the Title of the Bill, which is about terminally ill adults, and make it clear that this is about terminal illness and cannot be masqueraded as anything else. Yes, there will be multiple factors, because of course someone who is already seriously ill but is content with their life will not seek assisted suicide—that goes without saying. However, we also need to be clear about differentiating medication, which is where we give a substance with the intention of achieving an improvement to the person’s well-being, from the large cocktail of lethal drugs that we debated previously, and I am not going to revisit that.
I have a concern when we label all these patients as having pain and suffering. Evidence from other countries is that pain and suffering are not the prime reason why people are going for this. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, nodding, and I remember well from the Select Committee that we were on that we heard repeatedly that there were multiple existential factors that made someone’s life have so little meaning and worth that they felt they wanted to go for assisted suicide. However, we have to put some boundaries around it, because literally thousands of people in this country feel exactly that—that their lives are of no worth—and they feel suicidal. As Professor Louis Appleby, the lead suicide prevention adviser to the Government, has said,
“I’m worried once you say some suicides are acceptable, some self-inflicted deaths are understandable and we actually provide the means to facilitate the self-inflicted death. That seems to me to be so far removed from what we currently do and from the principle that’s always guided us on despairing individuals, that it’s an enormous change with far-reaching implications”.
The amendments would provide a ring fence and some safety barriers. Sadly, there are literally thousands of people in society who are suicidal. We heard a lot about that in relation to young people and the algorithms on their phones that they get into with social media and so on. There are an awful lot of people who are profoundly depressed and a lot of people in poverty, and when they become ill that may take them down one further notch, and there are a lot of people who just feel unloved. We have to make sure that the Bill sticks to what it claims to do, which is to be about terminal illness.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, in other groups last week, I covered issues of why I was concerned about people requesting assisted suicide because they feel like a burden, so I will not seek to rehearse those, but we should care about the other reasons why people’s decisions might be impacted, not least because in 2022 Marie Curie said that when someone is given a terminal diagnosis they are quite often financially impacted by that. So not only do you have the trauma of the diagnosis but other things happen and fall apart very quickly around you.
I know that Members of the Committee from all sides have worked on welfare reform and on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—all designed to provide better support for people who may need it. It is great to hear that there are GPs who will offer support on benefit claims and to put other things in place, but I cannot quite understand and work out where in the process people would be signposted back to the GP. We know that there is often a long waiting list for people to get a GP’s appointment; would one or both of the two doctors actually help somebody with a benefits claim or who would they signpost to? That is an important part of understanding the process.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long day at the end of a long week for many noble Lords, so I do not seek to make a long speech. But before I respond to the debate on this group of amendments, I want to thank all staff from across the House who have worked extra hours to ensure that we could be here today and at this late hour. We really do appreciate it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, for introducing the amendments in such a clear and, more importantly, concise manner. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, the principle behind this group is very similar to that behind the last group: what is being sought is that doctors should seek to establish whether those who are terminally ill, and who have been given a prognosis of six months or less to live, are seeking an assisted death for those reasons only—their terminal condition—and not material factors.
My noble friend Lord Markham explained why other motivations are relevant, could be relevant or could be reasons for people wishing to die or seeking an assisted death. Contrary to that, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Carlile, referred to misunderstandings and pressures, particularly on people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities. It reminds me of a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Easton, made at Second Reading—a man who spent all his life working with black communities in Bristol—who said he was concerned about the impact of this Bill on black communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has also spoken of her own very real experience and concern for people in the system, if the motivation is not purely because they are terminally ill but might be because of other factors. I know that my noble friend Lord Deben shares these concerns. I just gently remind him that he is not as unique a Conservative as he believes he is; all Conservatives want a better society. In fact, most politicians from all parties go into politics because they want a better society. We are on different Benches simply because we disagree on how to achieve that. Conservatives would probably say that the state is not the same thing as society.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry if I misled my noble friend. I merely meant that you can believe in the individual but you have to believe in the individual in a society, and you cannot take the extreme view that suggests that the individual is on their own. No man is an island.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Indeed, and in fact many classical liberals and libertarians understand the individual’s role in a wider society. But that is not the basis of this debate, and I digress too much. I will return to the group of amendments.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, understands the concerns of those who have raised issues about minority communities and people being stuck in the system. But I also know that he has already made his view clear about the principle of seeking to exclude some of those other principles—if I am incorrect, I am sure he will correct me. So I suspect that, given the strength of feeling, we will return to these amendments on Report.
Given that—I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer all the questions now and we accept that he or one of his colleagues will write to us—we have to understand how the Government envisage how a person’s motivation beyond their terminal condition could be established. That is the crux of the matter. How do you establish that if you can justify it only on the grounds of terminal illness, not other motivating factors?
For example, what work, if any, have the Government or NHS England done to try to understand that? One assumes they may have to draw up guidance for this one day. Have the Government, or anyone in government, looked at how other countries have handled this issue, whether they do handle this issue, and what would have to change? We spoke earlier about the foundations of the National Health Service and what might have to change in guidance for many of the practitioners. Indeed, what training would be required?
As my noble friend Lord Deben has often said, this goes way beyond just the Bill. It will affect the Department of Health, the practitioners and the legal system. These are questions we need the Government to answer. They can still take a neutral position, but they have to understand that noble Lords seek to understand the implications here for government, the costs to government, and how that will change.
I understand these questions are in depth and recognise that the Minister may feel it is slightly unfair. I do not expect all the answers now. But it has been a constant theme throughout the debate and the many days in Committee that we need better answers from the Government. That is not a party-political point; it is purely that we want to see the implications of this on government: what extra costs there will be, what guidance will have to change and, however the Bill finally turns out, and in whatever form it reaches the statute book, how the Government will deal with that. I suspect that, for many noble Lords who are torn the Bill, that might be the deciding factor on how they vote at the end of the day.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their considered contributions on the motivation for assisted dying. Before I go into the meat of my comments, I join the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in thanking the House clerks and staff for all their efforts and dedication in allowing us to sit for longer on a Friday to consider these weighty issues properly.
I also share the noble Lord’s comments about our wider motivations across the House, and about generally in politics wanting a better society. For what it is worth, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that, indeed, no man is an island. Whether that makes me a classical liberal or not, I am not sure—probably not.
These amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria for assisted dying, to require that the person’s wish to end their own life is due to their terminal illness rather than to other reasons. I will keep any detailed comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.
Amendments 320ZA and 332AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seek to prevent people being eligible for an assisted death if they are motivated by non-medical factors such as loneliness, poverty or lack of services. There are various workability issues with these amendments, which I will briefly outline to aid noble Lords’ consideration. First, it could be challenging to establish whether someone is seeking an assisted death as a result of specified factors, given that a person’s motivations could be complex. Furthermore, a wide range of factors could be deemed as non-medical, given that the term is not defined and the list given is non-exhaustive. It is also unclear how the patient or doctor are meant to proceed if these factors are present.
I raise no major workability issues with the other amendments in this group, which are rightly a matter for your Lordships’ House to decide. However, I would like to set out their potential effects, which noble Lords may wish to consider. The amendments would require a person’s terminal illness to be a motivation for them seeking an assisted death, but, as drafted, they do not require it to be the only or primary motivation. It is arguable that every person seeking an assisted death under the Bill would be doing so in some way because of their terminal illness, so it may be that, in practice, the amendments would not impact on who is eligible.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked me some questions. I would push back on his first question around how the Government envisage a process or system for establishing motivation beyond condition: we genuinely think this is a policy decision, and that is one for my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor, and those others who support the Bill. On his question about any work or research that NHS England has undertaken, I do not have that answer at my disposal, but I am very happy to take it back and write to him.
Finally, I would just like to mention that none of the amendments in this group has had technical drafting support from officials, so the way they are currently drafted means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lord Katz in thanking the staff for staying for so long this evening. I also congratulate the Committee on what was a very high-quality debate at the very end. We did incredibly well to have such a high-quality debate in the last hour or two at 6 pm. Thirdly, this is not in any way to denigrate the debate; it has been threaded through the whole of these Committee stages. Indeed, we had a quite similar debate last week, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to.
I will make three specific points about the amendment. There is a group of amendments, but at the heart of the lead amendment is that you should be entitled to an assisted death only where your motivation is
“because of the terminal illness”.
My noble friend Lord Katz adverted to this, but it is almost impossible to see that that has any real meaning in the context of a person who is, in fact, terminally ill. If any of us became terminally ill, it is almost impossible to imagine that the terminal illness would not have an effect on any decision that we would take, in particular a decision on whether we wanted an assisted death. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, touched on this. I do not know that I would put it in exactly the same way, but, to “Why do you want an assisted death?” they might say, “Well, obviously, I am terminally ill, and I have other factors as well”. So I am not sure that the amendment has any real impact.
Secondly, there is an underlying issue. I ask the noble Lord to let me finish—then, by all means, he can come at me at the end.
Secondly, there is an underlying issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said that perhaps breathlessness and pain should be the only justification, because that is all that doctors could properly measure. Again, that indicates a significant disagreement between us about the principle of the Bill. I do not shy away from saying that the principle of the Bill is that, once you are diagnosed with a terminal illness, then, subject to the stringent safeguards being satisfied, you should have the option of deciding for yourself how you die. If you go down the route that my noble friend Lady Berger, in her amendment, wishes us to go down, this, in my respectful submission, would be an impossible task.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
If the noble Lord will let me finish, then he can come at me. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, refers to the question of wrong diagnoses. We will come to that in the group that starts with Amendment 71; I do not want to go into it now. However, we are dealing here with a terminal diagnosis, with two doctors and a panel who have approved it. Doctors are not perfect, of course, but this is very much a safeguarded measure.
I apologise for not taking the noble Lord’s intervention straight away.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
Imagine I were a poor person who went before the panel and opted for an assisted death, but said, “Were I rich, I would not do this; I would take my chance on the diagnosis being wrong”. If the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, was passed, I would surely be ineligible, so her amendment is meaningful. If the noble and learned Lord believes that one should be able to choose an assisted death if one is poor, that is one thing, but, as my noble friend Lord Deben argued, one should be protected from having to choose it because one is poor. That is the difference.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The way the noble Lord has put the question to me means that, plainly, this would be because of the illness, would it not? I want an assisted death because the illness is going to kill me. That seems quite a bad example.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is saying that we have covered a lot of this ground before, but there is one reason that people keep coming back to similar threads. The noble and learned Lord has in many instances said, “I’m listening to you. I’ll think about that”, and nothing happens. It is not reassuring and there are different ways of approaching this. I thought I had made some inroads. The noble and learned Lord was quite positive about the question of motivation being relevant.
A patient arrives at the doctors and says, “I’ve got a terminal illness”. The doctor says, “Why do you want an assisted death?” The patient says, “I’m costing my kids a fortune—their inheritance. The care home costs tens of thousands of pounds. I’m a burden”. The noble and learned Lord just suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that you would say, “That’s your choice”. As in an earlier discussion in relation to the NHS, we are talking about NHS doctors, whom you would think would say, “Let me have a chat with you about that” and challenge them. They cannot just say, “If that’s what you want, carry on”.
All those examples I gave—I will not go over the millions of better ones used in the past—show that this undermines autonomy and suggests that the state is indifferent to somebody, in effect, asking for help in a different way but the form it takes is, “I might as well have an assisted death”. If you listen to them, they might be asking for something else that the state can intervene and help them with, whereas we just go, “Assisted death? We can provide that. Any of that other stuff you want, like financial help or help with loneliness and all that—we can’t afford that. That’s not happening, but assisted dying? You’re on your way”. That is why we are worried, and it is why these amendments are worth taking seriously. The noble and learned Lord needs to come back with written amendments that will reassure some of us so that we do not keep repeating ourselves.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
That was not really an intervention; it was just a statement. I should have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that, as I said last week, I will make an amendment so that the question of why will be asked, but I do not depart from the proposition that autonomy should be the leading reason for it. We disagree about that, and the House can reject that view on Report, but I am explaining what my position is.
Lord Harper (Con)
I want to pick the noble and learned Lord up on the progress that I thought we had made last week, which he has just confirmed a bit, when he accepted that asking the question was valid. The problem is, if the result of asking that question is that nothing changes, it is just cosmetic window dressing. He may not have intended to, but he illustrated beautifully the point of asking the question. If we talk to somebody and it is clear that the reason they do not wish to go on is that they are lonely and they have no one there, we can do something about that. There are organisations and people who would provide that companionship. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, shaking her head. There are organisations and people who would do something about that.
It comes down to the point I made last week. We are saying that, if your life is terrible and you get a terminal illness diagnosis, under the Bill, you are more likely to want to end your life with assistance than someone whose life is great. That is a terrible thing for us to do. The noble and learned Lord does not agree with me; that is fine. The House will have to make a decision, and I think that the position that we have set out with these amendments would lead to a better Bill and a better society than the one he is setting out. We will keep making that point and attempting to move him to that position.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we are meant to be having brief questions here; these are not brief questions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
That was the very thought going through my mind as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They just made the same speeches again. On the point that he is making, the question of why is worth asking for two reasons: first, it might go to the question of coercion; and, secondly, it might throw up something that can be remedied, but, in the example I gave about loneliness, it may well be that meeting an organisation in those circumstances is simply not enough and does not change the person’s view. That is why I say that autonomy, rather than parsing the reasons, is the right course. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cass (CB)
May I just correct something? The noble and learned Lord said that I wanted it to be only things that doctors can measure. It is not so much about things that doctors can measure. I was saying that it is about whether it is plausible—a doctor should have good judgment of this—that the distress the person is experiencing is in any way related to the illness with which they have been diagnosed. There is a subtle but significant difference because that is what helps you distinguish between it being that or coercion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I will think about what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps it is my fault for not getting it. I will not write, but I will talk to her and listen to what she says.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I have a short question, if I may. If I heard it right, the noble and learned Lord said that he would bring forward an amendment to put asking the question of why in the Bill. Whereabouts in the Bill does he intend to put it, and when will we see it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I do not want to commit myself to where it will be. It will come somewhere, but I assume the best place for it, subject to advice, would be either with the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor, or the panel or all three, having to ask why.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I also extend my thanks to the staff of the House for all their diligence in looking after us, particularly at this late hour. I thank all those who have participated in this important debate which, as I said at the start, goes to the heart of what this Bill sets out to do. While I am mindful of the time, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are a number of colleagues who wanted to participate in this debate but were prevented from doing so because of where they live across the UK. I myself would not be here right now if it was not for the fact that I am leading on this group of amendments. I would be with my family, acknowledging the Jewish Sabbath, as I do on a customary basis every single week.
I think it is worth rapidly reflecting on the contributions which build the case for these amendments. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about his lived experience of being told that he was going to die, and he is obviously still with us—we are delighted he is still with us—decades later. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, talked about the challenges of a six-month terminal prognosis and errors in diagnosis. That point was echoed by others during our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked about the challenges of non-medical motivations dominating the reasons for choosing an assisted death in some other jurisdictions, which really is the prompt for the amendments that we have discussed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the capability to have an assisted death alone should be due to the terminal illness itself. It was illuminating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about his socialist ideals. However, the context in which we consider this Bill is that we are not just individuals; we exist within a society.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, who corroborated how these amendments in a medical context ensure that the motivations for an assisted death are concrete, clear and defensible. I listened closely to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham—I do not think he is in his place. He asked how these amendments will make a difference, and this was a point echoed by my noble and learned friend. These amendments cement the principle of this Bill. It makes very clear to the public that it is your terminal illness that has to be the reason why you are pursuing an assisted death. Currently, the requirement is that doctors have to assess the patient and, instead of just establishing a clear, settled and informed wish to die, they must, via these amendments, establish that the terminal illness is the reason. That is not to say that there is no risk of someone being misled—that is the inherent risk to this entire Bill, in particular because of the lack of training that will be available to doctors as set out currently in the impact assessment.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, showed us how these amendments connect to meeting the public’s expectations of this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made it clear that the motivation to have an assisted death should be because of terminal illness and we should set that out in the Bill. This is yet another issue that is not clear and we need those clear boundaries. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for setting out some real-life case studies and examples of why these amendments matter.
I believe that this debate, and, indeed, how my noble and learned friend set out his conclusion just now, has confirmed that there is a real difference at play in how we understand what the Bill sets out to do. For some—I hope I am not mischaracterising, but this was certainly in the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and my noble friend Lady Royall—it is about autonomy: allowing those who are already dying to exercise choice over the timing and manner of that death. For others, like me, it is primarily about compassion in seeking to prevent or minimise the suffering associated with their illness. These are related positions but they are distinct. My amendments have sought to establish which is the position of the Committee.
For myself and, in particular, those with a strong interest in mental health and suicide prevention, it is the latter that offers the stronger consideration for introducing a system that I am concerned is fraught with obvious risk to the vulnerable and those at risk of pressure. That means that we must do more than simply establish that a person is terminally ill and that they genuinely wish to end their lives; we must have a means of establishing the link between those two questions so that we do not open the door to having the state, which should protect vulnerable people, instead becoming complicit in their premature deaths.
None of these amendments, I believe, prevents there being additional motivations for seeking an assisted death. I intend to revisit this fundamental issue at the next stage and, indeed, through my engagement with this enormously consequential legislation. I will certainly consider the Government’s assessment of the wording as set out by the Minister, and I hope that the sponsor will also consider the profound concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate when we return on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.