Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
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.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

How are we looking after the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable time of their life if we isolate them from those who have given them care in the most difficult time of their life, when they are about to die?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The proposal here is not isolating them in all the things that matter; it is doing something quite different. It is saying that those who are looking after them continue to look after them and give the information that is necessary for those who will make judgments to make those judgments. It is making a distinction between care—that is, the people we are talking about—and a decision about life and death. That decision should not be made by the people who are looking after them, but the people who are looking after them should provide information to those who are making an objective decision. That is why putting carefulness at the heart of what we do, and putting the rest to one side, is a proper way of dealing with it.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord was at pains to say that he felt that assisted dying was somehow not a compassionate part of care, but will he accept that, for some people, it is the true definition of compassion? Noble Lords have heard me say on many occasions that, when my mother was terminally ill and it was suggested that we might help her take an earlier train home, that was absolutely the compassionate thing, which she and others wanted. For all the supporters of assisted dying in this House and in this country, which is about 70% of people of every religion and including those with a disability—every group we talk about—it is because they believe that that is the most compassionate thing they can do: to give the person the autonomy of their own choice of how they want to end their suffering.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

One problem with using the word “compassionate” is that it is a mechanism for suggesting that one’s own answers to these issues are compassionate and other people’s are not. I happen to think that the most compassionate way of dealing with this is, first, to have a society in which we have palliative care of the highest standard for everybody. Then, if you have that, it may be that some would believe that it would be better for them to make a choice to kill themselves. This is what we are debating: not the principle but how you do this. I have given a clear statement of what my principled views are, but I am talking now about the facts of this issue. First, you have to show that you have proper palliative care. Secondly, you have to accept that there will be, in accordance with the Bill, the opportunity for people to decide. Who should make that decision? The problem is that, if you have proper palliative care, that will continue—or it ought to continue. All the information that those people have should be given to the people who are making that decision.

My noble friend is absolutely right: there are those who feel that this is a compassionate answer. I suggest that, if they feel that, the opportunity to make that choice should not be in the hands of people who are actually looking after them. I have tried to explain that, first, it makes many people more frightened of hospitals; secondly, it confuses their relationship with doctors; and, thirdly, it is very difficult to see that all those people who are looking after people will want to be involved in this. Fourthly, this begins to get closer to what the people who support the Bill demand should be carried through. We are trying to find an answer and, if the sponsors of the Bill do not like this particular answer, perhaps they can come forward with a proper programme for how to do this, instead of leaving it to the vagueness which our own Select Committee said was unacceptable.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to have become a regular feature of these Committee sittings that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I disagree—but I think we disagree with courtesy, and I hope we disagree on the basis of real understanding. However, it is extraordinary that we have got to this stage in the Bill and he does not seem to accept that those on this side of the House—or rather, those of us who support the Bill, as it is not an “on this side of the House” issue—are in favour of palliative care. We have always been in favour of palliative care and have always said that the two go together.

I have not had the honour of serving in the other place, as the noble Lord has done, but I have had experience of sitting on other Select Committees of your Lordships’ House on this particular matter—not the immediately past one, but on others—where we looked in detail and travelled to those places where assisted dying is in place. There is absolutely no evidence that assisted dying, when introduced, does anything other than improve palliative care, because it improves the understanding that people have of discussions about end-of-life care, death and the general issue, which can be debated more openly.

I am not trying to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, any further, but one of the things that has concerned us in this Committee is that there is so much emphasis in so many of these amendments on the detailed administration—the noble Baroness used the word “nitpicking”, which noble Lords did not like—and the very small print, and so much less focus on those people who are actually going to hope to take advantage of this legislation: patients and people who are dying, and people who are reaching the end of their life. I remember that in a previous debate my noble friend Lady Hayter said this, but I have been rather shocked by the emphasis, for example, on the bureaucracy and structure of the commission and so on, which has not emphasised the position of those people who are dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate so far today. As we know, this group of amendments focuses on two core subjects: first, adding a new multidisciplinary panel process into the Bill, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and secondly, amendments in relation to approved substances. This is a large group of amendments. As ever, my comments will be limited to amendments where the Government have major legal or technical workability concerns.

On the suite of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, it is the Government’s view that, logically, these amendments stand or fall together, as they are a systemic change to the Bill. The amendments would introduce a new system of “assisted dying panels”, distinct from the existing assisted dying review panel in the Bill. These panels would receive and consider requests for assistance as part of the first declaration process, replacing the role of the co-ordinating doctor. The amendments would also introduce the concepts of “licensed assisted dying services”, “navigators for assisted dying”, and “designated” pharmacies. These are rightly policy choices and matters for the sponsor and for Parliament to decide on.

However, noble Lords may wish to note that it is the Government’s view that this package of amendments would lead to major technical, legal or operational workability concerns. The amendments introduce new concepts that would require significant further work to ensure that the policy intent was clearly understood and could work with the rest of the Bill.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The point about the drugs and their control will surely have to be dealt with by the Government, whatever happens. What assessment have they made—surely they ought to make it in any circumstances—about how that should be done, what it would cost and how one can protect people from dangers which have happened? It seems to me that that is not a policy matter but a practical matter which we ought to understand from the Government.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I can only refer the noble Lord to previous comments that the details around these matters will be considered when progress is made. It is not appropriate for those matters of detail to be considered now. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but I think we are very clear about the responsibility of government at this moment in time, and it will be for my noble and learned friend to respond to the detail of policy as we go forward.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If the Minister does not mind me saying so, this is a real problem. If we do not know—because only the Government can tell us—what the mechanism whereby drugs would be dealt with would be, how can we make decisions about this? We really need to know from the Government, under the present Bill, what in general the way in which they will deal with this is, otherwise we will have to put it into the Bill because we do not know. It really is important for the Government to help us.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I completely recognise the noble Lord’s strength of feeling, which he has expressed on many occasions. However, I just reaffirm that we would go through a process for determining the mechanism around the matters that he raises should the Bill progress, and that is a clear point from the Government in response to his—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I accept what my noble friend says. I hope she has read my note to the committee, which it published, in which I accept that further work is required, in particular on Clause 37. I accept in principle that I have to come back with further amendments in relation to Clauses 27 and 37.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has made a series of creative suggestions. She is addressing this in a way that is separate from the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She says that her proposals on substances should apply irrespective of which scheme it is. I need to consider some of them in detail. My noble friend Lady Blake has indicated why some are difficult to integrate into substances for assisted dying. I am particularly interested in the relationship between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the approval of these drugs; that needs further thought on the sponsor’s part. In addition to the amendments that I am proposing to Clauses 27 and 37, I should consider them as I think they are valuable.

For the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Blake, I do not support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in relation to clinical trials. Although the MHRA has a part to play, I also accept the limitations on that put forward by my noble friend Lady Blake.

I have seven amendments in this group: Amendments 624A, 708A, 708B, 710B, 862B, 877B and 878A, all of which relate to limiting the power in Clauses 27 and 37, and include a requirement for consultation in respect of the Minister. I do not think that they are contentious, although I accept that people think that I should go further. In the respect that I have mentioned, I am more than willing to think about going further. If and when we reach those amendments, I expect the Committee to agree to them.

I deal finally with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in relation to Northern Ireland. He asks why the Bill extends the power of the drug regulator in this respect to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will know that drug regulation is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom so must be dealt with by a statute in this House. We are not suggesting that Northern Ireland should change its current law, but if there was a law change then there would be no reason why the drugs authorised in whatever process the Secretary of State agrees to should not apply to Northern Ireland. That is why it refers to Northern Ireland.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does the noble and learned Lord agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that assisted dying is part of palliative care?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Assisted dying is about giving somebody a good death. Palliative care is about exactly the same thing.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That is a very helpful intervention. We can therefore see that the process of appointing the commissioner should not simply be in the gift of the Prime Minister and that there are processes—we have illustrated that. The difficulties in relation to accusations of neutrality or partiality and so on will come up in that process. However, at the moment, there is nothing in the Bill that would allow any of that to have come up before the appointment.

I suggest that there are a range of amendments in this group that the noble and learned Lord might want to look at carefully and accept, so that the role can be insulated from party politics, accusations of advocacy and speculation about what if this or that goes wrong. Maybe nothing will go wrong, but if something does go wrong with the commissioner’s conduct or they are seen to be acting as an advocate activist, there is nothing in the Bill that would mean that Parliament could do anything about it. We would just be stuck with it. Can the noble and learned Lord say what checks he sees for impartiality and guardrails against activism in the choice of commissioner and their role? What process will there be to ensure a commissioner’s impartiality in their role, even if not in their personal views? How can we make that guaranteed? How can we hold conduct to the highest account? At the moment, it seems to me there is no mechanism in the Bill to do so. Without that formal oversight, the way the Bill has set out appointing a commissioner is unsafe, and it should be looked at again.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I have tried in my contributions, which have been few although I have in fact been present for almost every moment of this Bill, to point out to the noble and learned Lord those occasions when his actions can make a great deal of difference. It seems to me that this is one of those.

I have been pressed by the media to speak about the Bill. I have refused every opportunity because I believe that the Bill should be debated in this Committee and there should be no attempt outside to make it difficult for us to say what we need to say in our proper carrying through of our business. If I had appeared on the radio, I would have said that the problem that we face is that there is so much in this Bill that is uncertain, unexplained and left to Ministers and particular appointees that we do not know how the Bill would work in practice.

This is not a question of whether you are on the side of the Bill or against it. It is that we have a duty to make this Bill work. I do not like the Bill and I do not agree with the principle, but I am not speaking from either of those points of view. I am speaking to try to get this Bill to be a suitable Bill to do the job which the promoters want it to do. I much resent the way in which people attack that, as if one is behaving improperly. There has been some disgraceful behaviour attacking one of the most distinguished Members of this Committee, who is knowledgeable and able, with a history of fighting for rights and the kind of behaviour that we should have for the terminally ill and the ill who need palliative care. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will apologise publicly for what has been said to the noble Baroness, because it is unacceptable.

Let me say why this is perhaps the most important groups that we have had. Outside, there is genuinely held concern about the mechanisms which will make this Bill the safest Bill there is. The person who does this job is clearly not going to be somebody who is against the whole principle. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, is perfectly right that, if this becomes the law, the law will be carried through. The question is whether the person who is going to do this job is someone who will command the respect and support of the nation as a whole. The amendments before us are simply an attempt to find ways of making sure that happens. They are not suggesting that it should be somebody who is opposed to the principle. I cannot imagine anybody applying for it if they do not believe in the principle—I am certainly not going to apply for it myself. The fact of the matter is that it is going to be somebody who supports the Bill and is prepared to carry it through, but that person must have the respect of the public as a whole, and the appointment therefore becomes very important.

I do not want to tread on sad circumstances, but we do not have a terribly good history of appointments in recent years, on both sides of the House, so this is not a party-political comment. It makes it very important to get it right at this point.

There is no question of filibustering in saying to the noble and learned Lord that this is at the heart of the problem. The Bill is supported in principle by many in the organisations that are going to carry it through, but it is opposed in particular by them all because the Bill has not met their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I think it perfectly right for the noble Baroness to have intervened because I referred to her, and I apologise.

I want the noble and learned Lord proposing the Bill to face three issues that are centred around these amendments—which I am dealing with, I say to the Whip. These amendments are trying to meet the genuine concerns of people who are not necessarily opposed to the Bill. They want to make sure that this key person knows what his or her job is, is appointed in a way the public can have confidence in, and is not the harbinger of what has been called mission creep. Those are three very simple things to ask for.

This is the thing that really worries me. I say this directly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I cannot understand why, at the beginning of the Bill’s passage, he did not say, “First, we know that there is a problem that it used to be thought this Bill had a judicial element to it and it does not now, and I am prepared to look at how to change that. Secondly, we know that the professional bodies have real concerns, and I am going to present my answers to those. Thirdly, I know that there is much in this Bill that is not specific enough, which is why the Select Committees have said it is inappropriate and unacceptable in its present form, and I will put those things right”. Had he said those three things, we would have been a long way forward with the Bill.

Therefore, the Bill is being held up not by filibustering but by the fact that the people who have put it forward are so determined that it will pass that they are not willing, it seems to me, to listen to reasonable comments—even from people who have restrained themselves from entering into the bear garden they have managed to stir up in the media.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 430 and 434 in my name go to the practice in operation. I will introduce them by making this point. I was one of the seven people fortunate enough to be identified in the Observer a couple of weeks ago as having tabled a lot of amendments. Contrary to what the Observer—and the quite numerous hostile messages I have received by letter or email—suggested, these amendments, together with all the others I have tabled, except for two relating to the victims of industrial disease, were put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales and by the CLADD group at King’s College London. The latter, for those who were not here the other week, is a group of a distinguished psychiatrist, psychologist, social scientist and lawyer with a particular interest in this and related issues. They and the Law Society are neutral on the principle of the Bill but want to see a safe and effective Bill. Amendments 430 and 434, together with others I have tabled, are aimed at that.

Amendment 430, some will be pleased to see—others will not—is for a streamlined, non-panel basis. It would insert a new clause saying:

“This section applies where the Commissioner receives … a first declaration … a report about the first assessment … which contains a statement indicating that the coordinating professional is satisfied as to all of the matters … a report about the second assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the independent professional is satisfied as to all of the matters … The Commissioner must, as soon as reasonably practicable, consider the person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance”.


He or she may then

“consider the person’s eligibility personally … refer the person’s case to a person qualified to sit on the Assisted Dying Review Panel”,

or

“refer the person’s case to a multidisciplinary panel”.

In practice, this means that it would be a modified procedure where there is agreement between the co-ordinating and independent professionals. The commissioner could then consider the application alone or refer it to the panel, so it would not necessarily have to go to the panel. A full panel would be mandated only if the independent professional is not in agreement with the co-ordinating professional that the criteria are met, or if it becomes clear during the modified procedure that further evidence is needed.

Some of those who are not in favour of the Bill may be concerned that this amendment could potentially weaken the process. I remind the Committee that Dame Caroline Swift, latterly a High Court judge but formerly lead counsel in the Shipman Inquiry, has said she is afraid that safeguards on assisted dying are likely to be eroded. We have to be very careful, because Dame Caroline Swift was right at the sharp end of looking at this. That is important, as she has seen what happens with a rogue doctor. She said:

“Those safeguards may seem adequate now but they are likely to be eroded over time. As Leading Counsel to the Shipman Inquiry, I saw how this had happened with the safeguards for the issuing of cremation certificates … Over the years, the second doctor’s role became diluted, they were seldom independent of the first, rarely examined the body and the signing of the second form became little more than a ‘tick box exercise’”.


My Amendment 430 might later be at risk of leading to dilution, but I hope it is an indication that there might—in clear cases, where everyone is agreed early on—be a way of moving it on swiftly, to the advantage of someone who is really anxious to go down this course and has capacity and all the other requirements. I hope that will be seen as a positive move and not a wrecker’s move. I am surprised that no one has come to me since this was tabled and said, “That’s a good idea; we’ll stick it in the Bill”.

Amendment 434 would amend Clause 16 and is simply intended to make it clear beyond doubt that referral to the panel is mandatory wherever the independent professional is not satisfied that all the requirements are met. The Law Society believes, and I agree, that as it stands it is not necessarily mandatory, and it should be. So, I ask rhetorically, why not? Are these not both jolly good amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

With respect to the Select Committees in the other place, they should be consulted and decide whether they want it.

In the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, she draws attention to the fact that the assisted dying commissioner has a function under the Bill. That function is to receive documents, make appointments to the assisted dying panels, make arrangements in relation to such panels—this means that he or she is responsible for making sure the process runs properly—and determining the applications for reconsideration of panel decisions. That means that, if a panel says no to an applicant who wants an assisted death, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner has the power under Clause 18 to say that another panel should look at it. He or she has that power in a semi-judicial function if there is an error of law in relation to it, so that is a function.

The commissioner also has a function to monitor the operation of this Act. If noble Lords go to Clause 49, they will see that he or she is given the power to make reports, give an annual report and identify things that may be of significance in relation to it. One should not confuse this role with monitoring, for example, the performance of doctors in relation to their role. I do not see the very specific functions and the obligation to monitor and give reports, as in any way in real conflict. I think they could be done by the same person, particularly if there is a deputy to be appointed as well. I note what the noble Baroness said, but I do not think it is necessary to make provision in the Bill for a separate role for somebody to do both. I have thought very carefully about it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has been kind enough to indicate that he has had to leave, but I will deal with his point. He wants not the Prime Minister but the Lord Chancellor to make the appointment. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are both political appointments. We have chosen the Prime Minister because—even though I think there is practically nobody more important than the Lord Chancellor—the political world, for reasons I am completely unable to understand, regards the Prime Minister as more important. We have chosen the most important person in the Government to make the decision and, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think we should change that.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked why we should have a judge. I am a great admirer of judges, and I declare an interest in that I am married to a judge. The reason why we have a judge is twofold. First, ex-members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court of England and Wales—it is England and Wales that we have in mind—have high standing. They are regarded as people of calibre, which is why they are put in. Secondly, one of the specific functions in the Bill is to consider whether the rejection by a panel is an error of law. That seems to us to be appropriate to be dealt with by somebody with high legal experience. Separately, the commissioner is somebody who has to issue rules and a process for dealing with it. That is the reason for doing that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is the argument the noble and learned Lord puts forward, with which I entirely agree, does it not lead him to understand that the proposal of the noble Lord who spoke unwillingly earlier, to put this back where it was in the first place—basically, under the control of judges—would be a very good thing to do? Why has he not accepted that most of us would be able to support that, and therefore we would cut down the time we are spending on dealing with the situation when it is not there? If it is necessary, as he says, why not do the whole hog?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

We have changed from a judge to a panel because, after considerable debate in the Commons, it was thought that having a legal person in the middle, a psychiatrist and a social worker gave greater reach and understanding of those issues. We debated that issue in full over a particularly long period of time on an earlier Friday. I am more than delighted to redebate it—however, I think that issue has been laid to rest. That does not mean one does not have to have a process whereby the doctors pass their findings to a panel, and that is the role, in part, of the assisted dying commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Could I come back on that? I never said that it was a major reason: I just said that it was a consideration that had to be made. Budgets are very strapped in the NHS at the moment and, if it can ensure that people who are blocking beds vote for assisted dying, that will save the hospital money. That is just a fact of life.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this particular amendment until something happened at lunchtime. I have to apologise to the noble and learned Lord, because I am not sure that I can make a joke about it, as he has requested me to in any speech I make. The fact of the matter is that at lunchtime I discovered that my local health trust has withdrawn its payment to Marie Curie, which means that there will no longer be Marie Curie nurses helping people in the final months of their lives; that support has been withdrawn because of the tight budgets in the National Health Service. I am appalled that we are in that situation, but it reminds me very clearly of the fundamental problem of a single-issue Private Member’s Bill, because it asks us to consider something not as one of a series of priorities among which government has to make choices, but as something on its own. That inevitably is a real problem.

The second problem is that anyone who has been a Minister knows how the Treasury works. If you ask it to give you some money to spend and then say, “But we’re going to make these savings”, it always counts the spending and refuses to acknowledge the savings. That is a Treasury mechanism that we have all learned—and I see that a former Health Minister knows precisely what I mean.

The problem with this issue is precisely that: money will have to be spent, but the savings—let us leave aside whether this is a suitable balance—will certainly not be considered, which is why the Deputy Health Minister said there would have to be “reprioritisation”.

So I come to this Committee having been shocked at lunchtime. Perhaps the Chief Whip should not have allowed us off for lunch: then I would not have been able to see this. However, the truth is that I am shocked by the fact that one of the most important palliative care services is now going to be ceased for the part of the country in which I live. That therefore brings me back to the amendment. I think we have to say to ourselves, very clearly, that, if we are proposing to spend money on this, it is quite clear from the Government that that will mean “reprioritisation”, which actually means cutting other money in order to save enough to pay for this.

I hope the noble Baroness will not be upset by this, but I do not understand how the Government fail to do this: in all the advice they give us, they refuse to tell us how much they think this will cost. That is a duty of the Government. They should tell Parliament, if it is a Private Member’s Bill of this sort—I will give way.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

We produced an impact assessment of the Bill with detailed costings, provided by the health service, so to suggest to the Committee that the Government have not provided the costing is inaccurate.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

We have already told the noble and learned Lord what we think about the impact assessment. We have been asking for an updated impact assessment which takes into account the debates we have had and the assessments we have made. The Government have said they will not do that—that is what I am referring to. I want to see an absolutely up-to-date impact assessment based on the debates in which we have expressed and explained real issues which have not been raised before, so that we can, first, know how much it costs and, secondly, begin to ask ourselves, “Is this the priority?”

I will end on this. Is it a priority to provide people with the free chance to kill themselves and not provide people with Marie Curie nurses so they may live the end of their lives in a happier and better place? Anyone who suggests that we get that priority right by funding assisted suicide rather than Marie Curie nurses seems to me to be saying something that the public would not accept. One of the problems with this whole debate is that we have never been prepared to tell the public what the real effect of this is. Therefore, I very much support this amendment—not that I would normally support the kind of position my noble friend raises in his particular way, but he did it most elegantly. I support it entirely because, at long last, we are talking about the facts and what this really means for the people of Britain.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, he might be interested to know that we have been here before. He will know that, in 2012, as a result of replies to freedom of information requests about the discredited Liverpool care pathway, it was revealed that £12 million was promised to various trusts across the country to hit targets in respect of the Liverpool care pathway. There was fiscal inducement to facilitate the death of patients. So this is not a scare story; we have seen evidence of it within living memory.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention, and it is important. I have been trying to be very careful not to suggest that those in favour of this Bill are in favour of it as a money-saving operation. I do not believe that is true, but I have to challenge them with simply this: once this were in the system, it would be a serious temptation.

There are two big temptations in this Bill. The first is summed up by that old phrase “Where there’s a will, there’s a relative”. There is a real issue about coercion. The second great problem is that you change the fundamental relationship between the ill person and the doctor. You also create circumstances in which it is very likely that it would be cheaper for people no longer to be there. If anyone thinks that that creates confidence, either in the medical profession or in the National Health Service, I do not.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

He did not intend to say that he would go further than I have just gone. That is confirmed. I would be surprised if he had intended to go further than I intended to go.

With respect to the noble Lord, we are not here to debate what is going on in the family justice system. We are here to debate these amendments, and I am going to stick to that. I am also anxious not to take too many interventions because this is a large group, and there are things the Government want to say about workability. I need to get through them in the time allotted to me.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

It is of crucial importance for us to know whether, if we pass the Bill in these terms, other people who are in desperate need would find that they had to wait longer for that need to be met. It is not good enough for the Government to say, “We’ll provide resources to meet the Bill”. They must tell us whether those are additional resources or whether very sad and poor people are going to lose out because the Government take the money away.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am not going further than I have gone.

It is the Government’s view that, to a great extent, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should stand or fall together. As we understand matters, the overall intention of the noble Lord’s amendments is to replace the assisted dying model set out in the Bill with a court-based system. That is a policy choice and a matter for Parliament, but the Government’s view is that, were Parliament to allow some of the noble Lord’s amendments but not others, this might cause problems with the drafting of other provisions, both in the Bill and elsewhere.

I give one further note of caution: if your Lordships support these amendments, the Government may need to revisit the drafting in order to ensure coherence with the statute book, and the noble Lord has readily acknowledged as much in his speech. Although our view is that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, stand or fall together, the Government believe that your Lordships should be aware of our observations and any concerns we need to raise about the workability of proposed clauses as currently drafted.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear the categories that will not be up for release, because nobody wants sexual predators and misogynists out on the streets—so I am delighted to hear that. But when the issue of prisons comes up, we always have to ask ourselves: what are they for? They ought to be for keeping dangerous people off the streets, but that is not what we do at the moment; we throw into prison an awful lot of people who should not be there. Through the Minister, this Government could think about changing who we put in prison because, quite honestly, the number of people going to prison is ludicrous when you think about some of the crimes they have committed.

Drug law reform is an obvious area. It seems absolutely ridiculous to put people in prison because of drugs offences when they have access to even more drugs there than they do out on the streets. Prisons are failing in that way, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister had to say about drug use in prison. Unfortunately, our new Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to continue the ideological war on drugs. Can the Minister at least review the evidence from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and publish its advice? The Conservative Government kept it secret because it called for the decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs.

It is good to hear about restorative justice, which is something further that that this Government could talk about. It is a voluntary process whereby people who have been harmed can work with the people who have caused the harm and perhaps identify how both parties can resolve or move on from it. We had amendments on this to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, so it would be good to hear the Government’s thoughts on this area.

Of course, if we are going to let people out of prison, we have to remember the scandal of the IPP prisoners. I was sad that the Minister did not mention them today because that category has clearly suffered the most incredible injustice. The legislation was designed to keep serious offenders in prison, but instead we ended up with nearly 3,000 people, most of them non-violent, trapped in prison. IPP prisoners turn to suicide and hunger strike. This is a legacy of the last Labour Government that the new Labour Government need to fix, as I pointed out.

One report says that someone got, in effect, 16 years in prison for stealing a flowerpot at 17. A prison sentence of 18 months should not turn into 18 years, which has also happened. It is no wonder that our prisons are overcrowded if we keep throwing people in there to rot for minor crimes. So do the new Government have a plan to work at pace to safely release IPP prisoners where possible? Is there a proposal for new legislation on this? We need the new Minister to sort out a plan on this. We need a resentencing programme to get the majority of IPP prisoners out of prison. Apart from that, I can say only, “Good luck”.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether I may ask a very simple question. I very much support what is being put forward, but in my history no Government have ever answered the simple question: how come Britain locks up so many more people than comparable countries in the rest of Europe? It seems pretty barmy. I do not feel any less safe in Paris or Berlin than I do in London, and yet both those countries do not lock people up in the way we do. It is a fundamental and simple question. I hope very much that we will pass this, of course, but I hope it will be in the context of the Government being the first of any political party—the previous Labour Government refused to look at this as well—to look at this fundamental question and ask themselves, “Why?”

The answer must be that there are better ways of doing what we are trying to do. If it means ignoring pressure from the Daily Mail, then I am afraid that is what we have to do. Given the brave statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made today about cuts, it might be a very good opportunity for this Government to take a new look at why we lock people up.