Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we have focused in this debate on the role of the independent advocate, but of course many of the underlying concerns arise with regard to protections for various vulnerable groups and people in situations that expose them to coercion or abuse. It is clear that the text of the Bill as drafted does not specifically address protections for groups such as those with Down syndrome or those subject to coercion.

In fairness to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, he could reasonably argue that the drafting of the Bill should be wide enough to encompass all of these groups on a generic basis without specifically referencing them. If the Bill is drafted with too much specificity, almost certainly somebody will be left out and we would have to come back at a later stage. That is presumably why the noble and learned Lord has introduced his regulation-making power in Amendment 549A, which I will come back to in a moment.

That said, I would suggest that it is not enough just to say that the drafting of the Bill is broad and that, therefore, we cannot debate its impact on specific vulnerable groups. I would be interested if the Minister could take time in her response to set out how the Government have taken into account the specific needs of the groups mentioned in the various amendments. That seems to me to be part of the work to deal with the practicalities of implementing the Bill.

How, for example, in practice does a person with Down syndrome who might have both speech and hearing difficulties communicate that they wish to die? How will medical practitioners and independent advocates assess that that person has come to an informed choice that they wish to die? Assessing the true wishes of people in that situation can be exceptionally challenging, and many such people rely on loved ones or carers to interact between themselves and medical professionals. How, therefore, do these family members or carers fit into the architecture of the Bill? How do they fit in, for example, with the independent advocate? What is the relationship between family members, carers and the independent advocate within the system of the Bill? Those are general questions which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to.

There is one specific point I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider which arises from his Amendment 549A, which would introduce a new clause after Clause 22. This point was prompted by a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. If one looks at subsection (2)(b), the regulations must

“require a specified person to instruct an independent advocate to represent and support a person”

if the section applies. In subsection (2)(b)(ii), it says that it applies if

“the person has not indicated that they do not want an independent advocate”.

I was just comparing that to Clause 20 of the substantive Bill, which deals with the situation of when a person who has made either a first or second declaration wants to cancel the declaration as they have decided they do not want to die. In those situations, the person

“may cancel it by giving oral or written notice of the cancellation (or otherwise indicating their decision to cancel in a manner of communication known to be used by the person)”.

On the face of it, therefore, we are requiring much more from a person—oral or written notice—to cancel if they do not want to die than what is needed if they do not want an independent advocate. If we are going to go down the route of Amendment 549A, instead of saying the person has not indicated they do not want an independent advocate, it really should be that the person has confirmed—by written notice or by some sort of firm confirmation—that they do not want an independent advocate. What does “indicated” mean? It is a very loose word and, I would suggest, a very light test. What is happening here is that a person who would otherwise have an independent advocate to protect them is now not getting one; if that person is not going to get one, then we need more than a mere indication from them that they do not want the protection because, ultimately, this is all about protecting people. The contrast with Clause 20 seems to be somewhat stark, so I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s response.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

I just wanted to stress, particularly for Hansard, that the people we are talking about are ultimately going to die from the illness they have had. Therefore, when the noble Lord has referred to them not wanting to die, he means that they do not want an assisted death.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

We all know what we are talking about here, but yes, absolutely.

This all goes back to the fundamental point of the Bill. I am addressing this point because the hypothesis is that the person has less than six months to live but, notwithstanding that, we are making sure that this particular group of people have an independent advocate. My point is simply that, if we are going to go down this road, there needs to be consistency: if they are not going to have an independent advocate, they really need to confirm it rather than merely indicate it. I apologise for my slightly loose language; the noble Baroness was quite right to pick me up on that. I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider my point as to whether “indicating” is actually the right test in subsection (2)(b)(ii) of his proposed new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

We should not allow the Bill’s six-month prognosis to become, in effect, an early death sentence. Patients do not know that the odds are not definitive and are sold misinformation by being told, “You’ve got six months to live”, when it is a bit more complicated than that.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, we have already had extensive discussion about the multidisciplinary team involvement. In 50 years of nursing—not all in clinical—I have never heard a doctor come out with, “You’ve definitely got six months to live”. There are much more subtle conversations.

I accept that people with MAID sometimes want to discuss it and say, “If I come off the support that you’re giving me, how long would I live?” Some of the answers can be very straightforward and we still enable patients to stop treatment when they want to.

I am also delighted that the noble Lord is alive and that he clearly understands statistical formulae.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I just want to ask the noble Baroness for one clarification. I agree that most doctors are not brutal and do not say, “You’ve got six months and that’s it”. I asked whether the Bill, which requires you to have a six-month prognosis to access the service, will encourage doctors to feel that they have to be more definitive to allow people to access this service.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

I do not think so. I have greater faith in the medical profession and the multidisciplinary team.