Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to several of my noble friend’s amendments and I would like to congratulate him on finding a solution that could allow the Bill to meet one of the sponsors’ original aspirations. The impact of Amendments 25 and 120 are many. One that may be attractive to the Committee would be that it would considerably shorten the Bill, as several clauses would be removed and hours of debate would probably become unnecessary.

The Bill states that it will

“allow adults who are terminally ill … to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life”

and refers to eligibility for

“lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life”.

The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary defines suicide as

“deliberately causing one’s own death”

and assisting suicide as

“the act of helping a patient to commit suicide by giving them the means … to do so”.

The Office for National Statistics similarly defines suicides as

“deaths resulting from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over”.

Clause 32 on the criminal liability for providing assistance explicitly references the Suicide Act 1961, providing that assistance carried out in accordance with this Bill will be exempt from that Act’s offence of assisting suicide. This reinforces that the subject of the legislation under consideration is assisted suicide.

I am aware that many people would prefer the term “assisted dying” because of the stigma associated with the term “suicide”. The Bill rather contradicts itself by adopting the term “assisted dying” while attempting to modify these other statutory provisions that concern assisted suicide. That creates both conceptual and legal ambiguity. If Parliament is being asked to authorise assisted suicide, then it follows that such decisions fall within the proper domain of the courts. For that reason, among others, I support my noble Lord, Lord Carlile’s amendment that would replace the assisted dying review panel with a court-supervised process.

Amendment 120 appropriately moves decision-making from the medical to the legal sphere. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment; it is an act with profound societal implications, and it therefore requires, I suggest, judicial rather than clinical oversight. For that reason, I believe that it does not belong in the National Health Service. Under the proposed model, doctors would continue to provide expert medical evidence confirming diagnosis and prognosis, but the final authorisation would rest with a judge. That judicial scrutiny provides a stronger safeguard against errors, and enhances transparency and public confidence in the system by placing responsibility for these irreversible decisions in the courts, where I believe they properly belong.

Concerns about capacity in the courts, or potential delay and cost, do not outweigh the need for robust safeguards when decisions of life and death are involved. The appropriate response is to streamline court processes, not to lower the level of scrutiny. The same issues of capacity in taking on a new stream of work would, of course, apply in the NHS. A judge would provide a more independent assessment of an individual application than a panel, which is likely to comprise people who have chosen to do that work and have no track record of dealing with issues such as undue influence. It is regrettable that the other place abandoned judicial oversight in favour of an assisted dying review panel and commissioner, thus seriously weakening the safeguards that were originally envisaged. The assisted dying review panel is not, in its current form, fit for purpose. Its composition does not provide sufficient safeguards for vulnerable individuals, and there is insufficient clarity on how it includes expertise in palliative care, safeguarding and decision-making capacity. A court model would be preferable; without it, the panel would need to be substantially strengthened.

I also strongly believe that, without guaranteed access to a comprehensive multi-disciplinary specialist assessment of palliative, psychological and social care needs, neither judicial scrutiny nor an expert panel would be able reliably to identify inappropriate requests for an assisted death. Those preliminary assessments are the most essential safeguards to ensure that treatable sources of distress, or modifiable psychosocial factors, are considered before an informed decision can be made, both by the individual concerned and by the decision-makers. We will debate specialist multi-disciplinary assessments in the next group of amendments, and I look forward to returning to that.

I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Carlile that seek to broaden the scope of safeguards referred to in Clause 1. At present, the Bill limits those safeguards to Clauses 8 to 30, which cover only the procedural steps. My noble friend’s amendments would extend the safeguard requirements to the whole of the Bill, ensuring that every substantive provision—not just the procedural elements—must be complied with before assistance to die can be lawfully provided.

I also support my noble friend’s Amendment 69 to strengthen the definition of “a terminal illness”. The amendment clarifies that a terminal illness must be

“an inevitably progressive disease which cannot be halted”.

The inclusion of “halted” is important; it ensures that eligibility is limited to conditions for which the disease trajectory cannot be stabilised or slowed through available interventions.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to two of the amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for meeting me in relation to his proposals under Amendment 120.

This group also contains related Amendment 116, which would introduce the capacity test that the noble Lord expects the court to use. Within that amendment, in the clear and settled intention part of that capacity test, is the introduction of the phrase “undue influence or coercion”. That test is different from the rest of the Bill, which uses “dishonesty, coercion or pressure”. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, as he has outlined, that undue influence has a particular meaning in civil law and is presumed within certain relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

My concern is also about the moral pressure that any panel member may feel. We do not know about the number of deaths. My personal view is that the equality impact assessment does not give us the detail that we need. The sponsor in the other place said that it could be 3% of deaths: that could be 17,000 deaths a year. If that is the case, I would be much happier with the pressure being felt through the High Court system, where I think there would be much more attempt to solve it and deal with it, than if it is hidden through a panel, which may not feel able to raise issues. I am not convinced that the panel is the right way to go.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The noble Baroness used the phrase “moral pressure”. I mentioned in my speech that this is a fundamental change. If Clause 3 has gone, not by way of clause stand part, then actually, “pressure” has now gone from the test here. We now have “undue influence or coercion”, not “dishonesty, coercion and pressure”. Does she have any view—I mentioned domestic abuse victims—on whether that makes any change to the safety of the Bill for disabled people?

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

Oh, absolutely: I think pressure is something incredibly important that we have to assess. Certainly, from the huge number of disabled people I have spoken to, pressure comes in many different ways, and it is very difficult to detect. If we do not take that seriously, I think people will be coerced into thinking that this is their only option, rather than that they have a range of options. That is picked up in some of my other amendments, but I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.

We talked about the equality impact assessment. We need to look at the impacts on the Crown Court, on health and education committees and on children with SEND, and I think we probably need another version of the equality impact assessment to enable us to make the best decision on the way forward for the Bill. I am minded to support my noble friend Lord Carlile, because I think that what he proposes is much better than the panel currently in the Bill.

Mindful of time, I will leave my last comment to the Medical Defence Union, the leading indemnifiers of UK doctors, which gave evidence to the Commons Bill Committee:

“The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted”—


noble Lords should understand that this was the context when the evidence was given—

“No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care”.


This is one group we have not really heard a lot from, and we should be minded of its role in the system as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am going to repeat the words that were used by my honourable friend the Minister for Courts in the other place. The decision as to the introduction of the panel was made by the sponsor.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Can I outline that it is a matter for a Minister? There is correspondence between the Minister in the other place and Rebecca Paul MP that specifically relates to the issue of “undue influence”, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has now proposed to be added for the first time into the Bill. I would be really grateful if the Minister would look at that correspondence and write and put a letter in the Library, because the Government expressed—if I am remembering correctly—a view on why “undue influence” was not appropriate to add to the Bill.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It sounds like an important point. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that I do not have the answer to that at my fingertips right now, but I will write to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I do not accept that. The position is in relation to the panel. If it wants a report from a doctor, it can get it. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to be saying that the court can ask for all these things—which of course it can—and if it thinks they are appropriate, it will do so. I assume it will not ask for them when it does not think they are necessary to the resolution of the issues. The panel can do the same and, if it does not get them, just like the court, it will have to say no.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

In relation to the panel, as a non-medic I understand from my time on the Select Committee that “multidisciplinary” has a particular meaning within healthcare that the witness to the Commons was relating to, so it is not quite the same issue. Is the noble and learned Lord not concerned that only two of the three representative bodies of the panel came and gave evidence to the Select Committee, and the British Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are not supporting the Bill, regardless of what their view might be on the principle? Although the noble and learned Lord is obviously very well persuaded by the evidence, the professional bodies that would sit on this panel are not yet persuaded.