Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Amendment 182 and Amendments 261 to 264 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Hunt would require someone seeking an assisted death to have their palliative and end-of-life care needs assessed and care provided by an appropriate health or social care professional if the person requests it. These amendments would also place a duty on the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the provision of palliative and end-of-life care. There would need to be justification for the different levels of palliative care being offered, on the one hand, to terminally ill patients seeking an assisted death and, on the other, those in comparable situations where patients are not seeking an assisted death. The Government have some concerns, as I said earlier, about creating unequal access to palliative care, with the potential effect of prioritising resource for those who wish to pursue an assisted death rather than for those with the greatest clinical need.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am not going to take any interventions, I am sorry. I am simply giving the Government’s view. We are very short of time. I apologise to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am not taking any interventions.

These amendments create a further risk of incentivising the use of palliative care when it is not in line with the wishes of the individual. If a patient has relevant and available palliative care options, as with all treatment options, it remains their decision whether to pursue them.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 832 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The Government have workability concerns in relation to the amendment, which states that no person may access an assisted death unless a consultant from palliative medicine has

“confirmed in writing that all appropriate specialist palliative and end-of-life care options … have been discussed and, so far as reasonably practicable, tried or considered”.

This appears contrary to usual clinical practice, whereby the involvement of specialist services depends upon an assessment of need and on the wishes and preferences of the patient. As Amendment 832 excludes people from eligibility unless they have tried or considered particular options for care, this could give rise to legal challenge on the basis that it is not justified under Article 2 or 8 or may amount to unjustified discrimination under Article 14.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords—