Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Murphy and Lord Deben

Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we should have a completely separate service. That would target and isolate people who are dying. They will wish to be supported by the people who they have known through the course of their illness, so it is crucial that they be seen and examined by those people and not moved to another place. Yes, there will perhaps be separate people who take on this role, and they should be properly qualified and discuss it with the panel, but it is utterly crucial that, when patients are in the process of dying, we do not separate and reject their carers, who should be part of the palliative care provided to them.

In other countries, assisted dying usually happens as part of a palliative care service. That is how it is done, very successfully, in Oregon and Washington. We should not separate carers who are there to support patients during this process. These little nitpicking changes to the Bill will just make it worse.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, but the last speaker has led me to do so. To describe the care with which this proposal has been put forward as “nitpicking” is frankly unacceptable. The noble Baroness should not have said that. The reason why this has been brought forward is that many of us feel that we should take seriously the pressures on the people who will have to carry out these arrangements, all of whom, either in principle or because of the nature of the Bill, have objections to the Bill, so one tries to find answers.

One of my sadnesses is that the sponsor of the Bill has so far not met the questions put forward by the Royal Colleges or—I say this to the noble Baroness—the committees of this House, which have suggested that the fact that this Bill is so unclear on so many things makes it unacceptable legislation, and that we need to be much more precise and much less vague.

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

The fact of the matter is that many of the things we are discussing would, in normal medical and social legislation, be contained in codes of practice. They will certainly need to be worked up in great detail for some of these issues to be covered, but it is not necessary to put them in primary legislation. For example, the carting of medication around between a pharmacy and a doctor is in a code of practice that is quite straightforward. I agree that that needs to be done in detail so that it can be monitored and practitioners who are implementing the legislation can do it with confidence. There is no good in putting it in primary legislation that will inevitably change when processes and habits change.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

That may well be the view of the noble Baroness, but it is not the view of the Royal Colleges, and it is not the view of the Select Committees of this House that have looked at this. It is perfectly reasonable for me to suggest that there is an alternative, and I am suggesting an alternative to the noble Baroness. I am still sorry that she should think the word “nitpicking” a suitable phrase to describe people who have spent their lives working on these issues and are trying to find answers to the problems that have clearly been raised by this Bill. Most of us who have views on this subject have been extremely careful in the language that we have used. We have respected the views of those with whom we fundamentally disagree, and we have done so with great care.

I will explain why I think we should consider these amendments very carefully. I am not expert enough to say that this or that bit is the right answer to this, but this is precisely the kind of information that ought to be in the Bill, but which is not. These are the answers that most people who are expert in this matter, and have given evidence to the various Select Committees, have asked for. This should not have been needed as an amendment; it should have been presented by the noble and learned Lord and those who are putting forward this Bill, because we need to know this before we vote on it, not afterwards. That is the problem that the noble Baroness is avoiding. We are being asked to pass a Bill and leave so much to things that will be done in a way we have absolutely no knowledge of.

There is a second reason why it is important to take very seriously these amendments: the relationship between patient and doctor. My one expertise is from having spent nearly 40 years as a Member of Parliament, representing a constituency. It is all very well for those who are perhaps removed from the generality of the population, but one thing you learn in your weekly surgery, and from going around your constituency, is the degree of fear that people have of doctors and hospitals. Anyone who is concerned about this from a pastoral point of view—here is a non-religious element for bishops and ministers of all sorts—knows very well that this is a fundamental fact that you find everywhere. One problem, even for those who are in favour of the principle of the Bill, is that it increases that fear among many people. Therefore, it is hugely important to ensure that there is a service that is clearly separate from and unconnected in any way—except that necessary connection to which the noble Baroness pointed—with the care that has taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I will give way in a moment but I wish to finish my sentence—and to being a society that cares for people right to the end of their lives. I know what sort of society I want to live in: one that looks after the most vulnerable at their most vulnerable time. If they are to be given that alternative, it is clearly unconnected with the fundamental moral duty of a society: to look after those who cannot look after themselves.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Murphy and Lord Deben

Wednesday 21st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that where a Member of Parliament is detained under the Act, the Speaker must arrange for two registered medical practitioners—psychiatrists appointed by the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—to examine the Member of Parliament and report. Six months later, the Speaker must arrange for a second assessment by psychiatrists, and if in their opinion the Member is still suffering from mental disorder, the Speaker lays a report before the House of Commons and thereupon the seat of that Member shall become vacant. There is no appeal mechanism. This provision also applies to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but not to the House of Lords. There have been times in this Committee when I have wondered about that.

This clause has never been invoked. In fact, the last use of the preceding section was for the removal of Reverend Charles Leach MP in 1916. It was very interesting to read about his case. He was clearly suffering from what we would call multi-infarct dementia and was not actually refusing to give up his seat, although it is clear to me that he would not now be detained in the way he was in those days. The Victorian legislation was introduced by the Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act 1886, a Private Member’s Bill to deal with one particular issue, although it was too late for that and therefore post hoc. The legislation was transferred, word for word and process by process, substituting lunacy commissioners with two psychiatrists in 1959 and again in the 1983 Act, and here we have it still.

We know from a survey conducted by an all-party parliamentary group in 2008 that one in five Members of Parliament admits privately to having had personal experience of mental ill health. That is not significantly different from the general population. The majority of those would be mild forms of mental distress, but some of us are aware of serious breakdowns where Members of Parliament have recovered fully and returned to work with few people being much the wiser. Surprisingly, there is a very inclusive, supportive environment in the Commons for people who have suffered periods of mental ill-health.

There is widespread agreement that this stigmatising and discriminatory legislation is not fit for purpose. None of us would tolerate such discrimination against people with physical ill-health who were away from the Chamber of the Commons for six months or more—for example, with a cancer or following a stroke. I am sure that the Minister will remember his own words along these lines in our debates on the Mental Health Bill in 2007, when the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, tabled an amendment similar to this one. Unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity in those 2007 debates to pursue the matter at great length because the previous Government reached the end of their term.

The repeal of this section was recommended by the Speaker’s Conference in January 2010—I think that 68 per cent of those who voted were in favour. In February this year, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that it would be repealed when a suitable vehicle could be found. I pay tribute to him and to the Cabinet Office Minister, Mark Harper, for their continuing commitment to this cause. This Bill is a suitable vehicle. I thank the clerks in the Public Bill Office for finding the right place to include it.

We should get this measure off the statute book and demonstrate the House's commitment to the continuing campaign to reduce the stigma to which the voluntary organisations and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have given so much time and energy to make a success. It is time for change and I hope that the Government will respond positively.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, has introduced in this Chamber an important Bill to repeal four pieces of legislation that discriminate against people with mental health problems, of which this was one. The others refer to jury service, governors of schools and directors of businesses. I am totally supportive of that Bill and hope that it is successful. I understand, however, that it is unlikely to be able to proceed through the Commons this Session and will therefore have to be reintroduced in the new Session. If this amendment were accepted today, it would require a simple revision to that Bill, but the major practical provisions are of much more widespread significance and would, I believe, continue to attract government support.

I had considered withdrawing the amendment and waiting for next Session to get that whole Bill through, but my anxiety is, as Harold Macmillan said, “Events, dear boy, events”. We have an opportunity now to get this right and we do not know for sure whether the opportunity will appear again soon. I would very much like to see the repeal of this section enacted this Session. What a Christmas present for the mental health world that would be. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, the parallel is that things amazingly go on in this country until they are stopped. The Girls’ Friendly Society long ago lost any reason for existing because the girls with whom it was friendly no longer existed in the situations and houses in which they were, yet it took a good 40 years to decide that it was time for it to go. I remember sitting next to a person who explained to me that the trains from Ipswich did not go to Manchester direct but went down to London because there was a row in about 1850 between the Great Eastern Railway and the Grand Central Railway. No one knew that that was the reason, so the trains still went along that route. It was only on privatisation that people started to look again and discovered why that was.