Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am going to finish very quickly if you do not interrupt me. The time limit is very clear, and I am going to stick to it, but I am finishing my point. I was coming to the end of my point, and that was not necessary. The Government Chief Whip made it clear that these are incredibly important issues, and we will debate them with courtesy and respect. I will treat people whom I do not agree with on this issue with courtesy and respect. As I have not exceeded the time limit, I do not expect to be yelled at. Let me just finish my point and then I will sit down.

My experience—I am going to go over the time limit only because I was interrupted—as a former constituency MP is that it is better to get these things right in advance, when you draft the legislation, and not spend years trying to fix them afterwards.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert on delegated powers, so I must admit to a bit of confusion. I hope that either the Minister or the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—or maybe both—can help clear this up.

My understanding of what the Bill is trying to do is to enable the Welsh Senedd to make a choice. If the amendments were to go through as drafted, they would deny that choice, because they would rule out people living in Wales from being able to choose whether they have assisted dying, whereas what I think the Bill is trying to do—I hope that can be clarified in the response—is state that the legislation will enable the Welsh Senedd to decide whether and how it wants to implement the Bill. When the Senedd does that, it can take into account the points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made about how the two services could sit alongside each other.

If we were to pass this amendment, we would deny the people of Wales that choice. That cuts right across the principles that the noble Lord, Lord Weir, set out when he said that the decision should be taken in Wales. The amendment would mean that the decision was taken here, which would deny the people of Wales that choice.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this debate and raising very important questions about devolution, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will first address the amendments specifically and then respond to some of the comments raised in the debate.

These amendments, along with a number of others in future groups, would remove Wales from the Bill. Ultimately, I am concerned that this steals the ability of the people of Wales to exercise their choice over how they spend the end of their lives. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, that could create a two-tier system, where people in England can decide while people in Wales are not granted that choice. By removing Wales from the Bill, we leave people in Wales in limbo. That is not the case for Scotland, because Scotland would be able to decide for itself.

It would be irresponsible of us neither to include Wales as part of this legislation nor to allow the Senedd to have the powers to legislate on this important matter. While criminal law remains reserved, health is not. If this Bill shall pass, it will have serious consequences for a completely devolved matter in Wales. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. To address this matter, I have tabled amendments that will be debated in a future group that could resolve this very issue.

As I urged at Second Reading, we must reflect carefully not only on the moral weight of the question before us but on the constitutional responsibility we bear. We must respect and protect the role of devolved Parliaments in matters that are clearly within their responsibility. As noble Lords have mentioned, in a future debate we will discuss giving the Senedd the complete right to legislate in this area. We must not deny people an important choice just because of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I was a member of the committee. The committee noted that we did not take evidence from terminally ill people. That was not a decision that we took as a committee. Suggestions were made and the clerks did not, in the end, manage to provide us with witnesses who were terminally ill, but it was not a decision that was formally taken. I agree that, had we taken evidence from—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

With due respect, I must say, as one of the committee members, that that point was put forward on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, there was a majority of people in the committee of seven to five against, by the way the nomination process worked, so it was the feeling of those members not to invite terminally ill people to speak. The minority of us who were in favour of the Bill tried on a number of occasions to hear them, but that was not allowed.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is helpful to your Lordships’ House to be going into discussions that included private discussions. The Motion that the House passed did not suggest that. Noble Lords will also know that there are ethical concerns about calling people who are so vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, may I clarify that? I have just checked the information. My noble friend is correct in what she says, in that the support was 50:50, but the majority of respondents—64%—opposed expanding eligibility and 65% of them were not confident that consent could act as an adequate safeguard against unfree choices, such as those resulting from coercion or psychopathology.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear, I think, that we all want the same thing here. Whatever one’s feelings about it generally, if this Bill is passed, we want to make sure that the person is in the right position—I do not use either “capability” or “ability”—to make a decision on whether to take part in assisted dying.

We all want the same thing, so what we have to decide is whether we believe that the existing framework, the Mental Capacity Act, can work here. I have heard a body of evidence that says it can. I respect in particular the evidence from Sir Chris Whitty, who, as Chief Medical Officer, is probably our highest adviser in the land in the medical space. He believes that it can do it. I also respect the opinions of the psychiatrists who have written in and said that, in their professional opinion, they are able to use the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person is in the right position to take part in assisted dying. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others have made out, we have a body of evidence and 20 years of experience showing that the Mental Capacity Act can work and is already acting in very similar situations.

One can argue whether these two things are exactly the same, but they are pretty similar: both involve life-and-death situations, such as “do not resuscitate” orders, people deciding not to eat or drink any more, and people with motor neurone disease asking to come off ventilators. These are all very similar situations that, today, are decided under the Mental Capacity Act. So we have a system that is being used and which our best adviser says works, and we are setting an unknown definition against that. If we set about asking, “What do we mean by ‘ability’?”, we would probably all come up with very different answers. This would be untried and tested; it may take years, if not decades, to find something, against something that exists today. It would be very confusing: when do you use the Mental Capacity Act and when do you use this new definition?

Again, we all want the same thing: for the person to be in the right position. Our highest expert in the land says that the Mental Capacity Act can do it, and a number of psychiatrists are also saying that they can make the assessment under it. To my mind, that is what we should be considering.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Markham, just said. We have a tried and tested way of measuring people’s capacity, but we do not have a single tried and tested way of measuring people’s ability. That is a very broad concept, and anybody who has worked in education at any level will say with absolute certainty that it would be unwise to replace what is currently in this Bill with “ability”. There is no definition of it—it can cover a vast variety of different kinds of ability—and finding an adequate test could take years.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I come at this debate from a point of personal experience. My mum, Judy, was 62, a fit and healthy Macmillan nurse, when, out of the blue, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given weeks to live. She was taken to a hospice three weeks later, barely conscious, and, very quickly, the clinicians gathered round her next of kin and suggested that she was in a lot of pain, that she did not have long, and that maybe helping her to take an earlier train would be the kind thing to do. We all agreed, and we all thank that hospice to this day for the kind and peaceful death that they gave her.

This happened not in some far-away land but right here in the UK. I think we are all probably aware of many such instances in the UK where, informally and quietly, terminally ill people are helped to have a kinder, compassionate, pain-free death. It is because of that experience that I am in favour of finding a way to allow other people to experience a kinder, safer death in a way of their choosing. I know from talking to many terminally ill people that it gives them great comfort knowing that they could have the ability to take that earlier train home.

I understand the concerns of many noble Lords here. I understand that, for some, it is a point of principle, for religious or moral reasons. I understand the concerns that many others have about the risks presented by the Bill, which is why I support the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in her amendment to have a Select Committee scrutinise the Bill to make it the best it can possibly be. That is, after all, what we do best in the Lords.

However, I believe that arguments against the Bill about the burden on the NHS can be addressed by making sure that the Bill enables provision by the voluntary sector, just as happens with our excellent hospices, which are majority funded by voluntary rather than government money. I do not believe that arguments about undue burden on the NHS should be a reason to oppose the Bill.

After speaking to many terminally ill people, I think that it is wrong to equate their wish to die in comfort and without pain with suicide. My experience is that these people very much want to live but unfortunately know that they will shortly die. They therefore want to have the choice to do that in a way of their choosing, with comfort and in a pain-free way.

To conclude, the Bill is about choices—whether terminally ill people are given the choice voluntarily to face a kinder, pain-free death and to take that earlier train home, or whether we choose that that choice should be denied to them because we feel that, somehow, they are not fit to make that choice or may have felt coerced into it. Giving people that choice is a fundamental right, which is why I want to work on the Bill to ensure we do it in the kindest and safest way.

Primary and Community Care

Lord Markham Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Building on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others, there are many examples where the ideal place to do a diagnostic test is in a primary care setting. Urinary tract infections are a typical example of that, because you can solve it quickly in that setting, avoiding future hospital visits and much pain and suffering. However, that means taking budgets away from secondary care settings and giving them to primary care GPs, pharmacists, et cetera. Are the Government prepared to do that to see these benefits arise?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are constantly reviewing how best to support where we need to go. In this case, it is about getting tests done closer to home. The noble Lord is right that, for a number of people, the GP practice is a good place to do that, but not in all cases. What matters is doing what is appropriate. We announced an £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26, which is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework in 2019, and we have also agreed a new GP contract. The noble Lord will be aware that we recently announced over £1 million to help the quality of the primary care estate, to ensure that we can provide some 11 million further appointments this year. While I accept that this issue is about configuration, I assure the noble Lord of our support for GPs.

Dementia and Alzheimer’s Treatments

Lord Markham Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad that I will be joining my noble friend in signing up as a volunteer. Certainly, the Lancet commission of last year said that some 45% of dementia cases are estimated to be preventable or delayable. That report is going to inform our actions as we look to the future. Perhaps it is helpful to clarify to your Lordships’ House—I am sure that many of us have experience of this—that the NHS health check for adults in England aged 45 to 74 is designed to do exactly as my noble friend says and identify early signs of various conditions which are contributory factors.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

A lot of the challenges in testing the efficacy of some medicines lie in measuring the progression of the disease. That is mainly done verbally and, as we all know, people have good days and other not-so-good days, so measuring the progression and impact of the treatment is hard. As the Minister will be aware, things such as retina scans are showing quite promising measurements in terms of the onset and progression. What are we doing in research in that area?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will be pleased to write to the noble Lord on that specific point, but it might be helpful if I say on the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that investment in discovery science by the UK Dementia Research Institute, for example, included the recently announced Shingrix study in partnership with GSK and Health Data Research UK, and we are also working via the Dementia Translational Research Collaboration. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the NIHR dementia trials network, which offers people with dementia the opportunity to take part in early clinical trials irrespective of where they live. The summary of all this is that we have some way to go, but we have made considerable progress in investment and plans for the future. I will take into account the noble Lord’s point.

NHS England Update

Lord Markham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend will know—as I am sure the right reverend Prelate knows—that the Chief Nursing Officer has always played a role in advising Ministers; that the case was long before the establishment of NHS England and will continue long afterwards. The chief executive, Sir James, has announced his new transformation team, and that includes NHS England’s Chief Nursing Officer.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As a former Health Minister, I too welcome this move, but the devil is in the detail. The point made about the NHS regions is completely right: that is another layer which will stop hospitals being freed up in the way the Secretary of State said he wants to happen. There is the question of whether lots of merged entities will be demerged again. As we all know, it is the uncertainty which hits productivity in the meantime, when people are naturally worried about their jobs.

I would really like to press the Minister on when we will see the detail behind the plan. When will it be produced, and when can we give the staff the information they need, so they know their position? Until that happens, the uncertainty will, unfortunately, hinder productivity and stop the changes we all want to see happening.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that point and the noble Lord’s wish for dates, which I am not able to give him, as I am sure he will appreciate. These reforms are not about front-line staff losing their jobs; we are talking about people employed directly by the department and the NHS. The noble Lord referred to the Secretary of State, and I would add that other arm’s-length bodies also need to be leaner than they are today.

I understand the problem, and we are going to work very closely with staff organisations, but it is not a neutral situation. Staff are suffering from box-ticking, duplication and red tape, which prevents them doing their job properly. Their morale is not good in this case—in any case. We do not want to add to that, but we do want to give them hope for the future.

Mental Health Treatment: Waiting Times

Lord Markham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend’s suggestions. Of course it is a team that provides the mental health support that is necessary, but I am particularly pleased that we are working to deliver a mental health professional in every school. That is a starting point, not necessarily the end point, so my noble friend makes some very helpful suggestions.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I appreciate from my own time as Health Minister how difficult it is to meet the expanding demand, so I wonder if we are still looking at other methods to expand capacity, particularly digitally, both in terms of early diagnosis but also some of the digital mental health treatments which are quite impressive?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad for the understanding of the noble Lord. NHS England is encouraging the local use of digital tools, for example digitally enabled therapies, and it is an extremely helpful way also of managing waiting lists so people are not just left waiting but they are held and supported, often through digital means.

Government Policy on Health

Lord Markham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot answer that, I am afraid. I would be very happy to look at it for the noble Baroness.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Although I understand completely the role of advisers—obviously Alan Milburn is a very reputable adviser—where is the line? My concern is that, when an adviser has a pass, has been in meetings without Ministers present and has perhaps directed civil servants in those meetings, a line has perhaps been crossed. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that this has not occurred and that there have not been any meetings where Alan Milburn has been there without Ministers—in effect, directing policy with no formal role.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The right honourable Alan Milburn has not been directing policy; he also has no pass. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord.