Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, for answering much of what would have been in my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. In my 15 years in your Lordships’ House, it has been the usual practice to give way, but I recognise that noble Lords have the prerogative not to accept an intervention. But I find it surprising—and I have never known it before—that the noble Lord is now no longer in his place. That is not in accordance with the advice that the Chief Whip gave this morning that we should treat each other in this House with respect.

The only additional point I make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who clearly did amazing work on the creation of life—it was on the television as I grew up—and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who talked about the pathway that midwives give for the safe delivery of that created life, is that it is entirely different to talk about a situation where the state pays for and facilitates lethal drugs to enable a citizen to end their own life.

Looking at the amendment—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may respond to the noble Baroness’s first point, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, who is not in his place either, mentioned that they had appointments that they needed to go to. I believe that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is not here now.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Well, I hope that he will write to me personally about this.

In relation to the evidence on which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is basing his argument, I was surprised that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the Australian non-comparable. Paragraph 8.4 of the impact assessment, on the delivery model, states that

“in most jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal it is provided through the healthcare system”,

so looking for international comparators is an unusual approach. The 30 jurisdictions that we keep hearing about include the Isle of Man, Tuscany in Italy, and only 13 of the 50 United States. This is not a wave that we must get with, as many progressive politicians like to say it is. Denmark considered this in 2024, and 16 out of 17 members of the Danish Council of Ethics voted against introducing assisted dying into their jurisdiction. Only yesterday, the French Senate decided not to go forward with legislation. This is in no way a progressive train that we need to get on.

My second point relates to the speed of these decisions for families. We know that the Bill is philosophically based on individual autonomy, which is anathema to many communities. For families to know that this was done within 18 days will only compound what we believe will be complicated grief. I am particularly concerned about how the speed of service will fit in with the increasing uncertainty of diagnoses for 18 to 25 year-olds because of the various positive effects of treatments for them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has admitted that there are, sadly, deficiencies in Clause 43 in relation to advertising. I do not think I am a cynic, but I am sorry to say that I can see a competition: “Can I get to 18 years and 18 days and be the first young person to meet that milestone?” We do not want a culture of speed in this process, limiting reflection.

Finally, maybe I am the only noble Lord sitting here without the benefits of the pre-legislative scrutiny of a consultation White Paper but, with many amendments, I am wondering how this service will fit together with a panel—or will it be a judge, or a judge with a couple of other members? That is the deficiency: in Committee, we are still trying to put right the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I do not know whether that is possible.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

What I am trying to come back to—a point that my noble friend Lord Deben was making—is that there are some valid criteria here. I am trying to build some flexibility into this system. Lots of eligibility criteria are being set out here, in all these different amendments.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I believe that the noble Lord answered that intervention, so this is separate.

The noble Lord served on the Select Committee with other noble Lords. We heard clear evidence from Alex Ruck Keene and others that this is not about flexibility: you need to know which piece of legislation you, as a clinician, are applying. Are you acting under your general duty on suicide prevention or, as in the example I gave, are you acting under either the Mental Health Act or TIA? There is no flexibility. Clinicians are asking for clarity on this; with all due respect, that needs to be in the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

It is about whether we are trying to build everything in; I will try to make my point now that I have taken a few interventions.

The point I am trying to make in all this is that these groups of amendments set out lots of different eligibility criteria. Some are about nursing homes and whether you are a resident. Some are about whether you have ever had a mental health assessment. Some are about financial support. Everyone in every circumstance says that, in some people’s circumstances, these criteria are very relevant and should be the criteria set down for doctors. It should be very clear that, under those criteria, the doctors and the panel should be taking these things into account. The criteria might be totally irrelevant for other cases, too.

We are trying to give the doctors and panels the opportunity to make these decisions without being tied up in knots over black and white exercises around whether the law is applicable to someone according to this or that, so that we can have a workable set of rules that takes into account all noble Lords’ concerns to make it as safe as possible—quite rightly—and creates a process whereby, ultimately, it is the experts, doctors and social workers on panels who are best placed to make a decision.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Mental Health Patients: Discharge

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Like many of us, I am sure, I have had very good personal experience of the midwifery service at community level. I know that there have been some challenges post Covid, but midwives are on the front line in understanding and recognising some issues. I should have mentioned earlier that there will be a round table with the Minister on mental health issues, following the one a few months ago, and this is one of the areas we should bring up with her.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill, it was clear to me that one of the problems was that there is a statutory list of next of kin which does not match the reality of some people’s lives, so there were provisions to introduce a nominated person. It does not matter how good the guidance is. How are we circumventing the statutory requirement for next of kin to be involved?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, like many noble Lords, I understand the disappointment that there has not been the time for the mental health Bill. This is what the round tables are about: exploring with Maria Caulfield, the Mental Health Minister, how we can ensure that we implement as many of these things as possible. We had round 1 and we will set up round 2 shortly. I suggest we take it up then.

Mental Health Act 1983

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the committee heard about disproportionality, particularly with community treatment orders, which are about 11 times more likely to be imposed on someone from an ethnic-minority background. Can my noble friend the Minister look at that, and maybe meet with colleagues in other departments to see whether there is a legislative opportunity to sort that out by putting that provision into a different piece of legislation?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes. I have tried to get into this further, and my understanding is that lot of the trouble is that there is often a fear from black and ethnic-minority people of the existing institutions that can help people early on. As we all know, with mental health difficulties, we have to act quickly. A lot of this is about getting everyone in society open to the idea that the earlier they can go to these sorts of places, instead of trying to brave their way through, the better. That is one of the key things to do to make sure that we do not then see problems down the pipeline, including the disparity whereby a black person is 11 times more likely to have community reviews and the disparity in detentions.

Mental Health In-patient Services: Improving Safety

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I understand the concern brought, quite rightly, by the noble Lord. It would be best for me to write on that, so that I can give the specific position and he can have the detail he requires.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee. We heard compelling evidence from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody that, although there is always an inquest into an unexplained death, there is the unique situation where if you die detained, in effect, by the state but in a secure mental health institution—as opposed to a prison, police cell or immigration detention centre—there is no independent investigative body to investigate the circumstances around your death. Given that this independent inquiry will look at a series of deaths over 20 years, will it be within its remit to look at whether or not, had there been some kind of independent investigation of those deaths, the themes and problems faced by the trust might have been spotted earlier?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We see that as being very much in the remit of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. In fact, the first thing we are asking it to do is to consider how we can learn from those unfortunate deaths, where they have taken place, in terms of their care. The intention is that it will report back. It will start in October and will report back on that within a year, so that we can get some rapid findings.

Childbirth: Black Women

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct that data is an issue. A lot of the frustration that Minister Caulfield expressed is about the fact that we are having to look in the rear-view mirror, because the data is about two years old. One of the fundamental things is to get that live data so that we can see what action works and where more needs to be done.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is also sad to note that the rate of black babies being stillborn is 6.9 per 1,000 births, as opposed to 3.6 per 1,000 for white babies. Can my noble friend the Minister please confirm that each trust is under an obligation to collect that kind of data and do specific research as to why a modern country has that really sad rate of higher mortality?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That is what the equity and equality plans are all about: understanding the local needs of an area. As I mentioned before, a lot of this is often due to the underlying health conditions of that ethnic-minority group. Also, many of us take for granted the fact that we are very clear on how to access medical services, but a lot of people from these ethnic minorities do not have the experience—for want of a better word —of accessing them. A key part of the plan also needs to be about how we can make this care accessible for all these groups.

Mental Health Act Reform

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Thursday 26th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I have some personal experience in this space, so I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. I think we all agree on its importance. We have a commitment to decrease the number of in-patients with learning disabilities and autism by 50%. It is something that every ICB must have a lead on, so that they can really tackle it, and I personally would be happy to meet the people the noble Lord mentioned to understand further.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, this process began four years ago, with the then Prime Minister announcing the initial reason for the review, which was the disproportionate way that the Mental Health Act is applied to many black and minority ethnic communities. Beyond the review and the White Paper, the Joint Committee recommends the abolition of community treatment orders, which are disproportionately applied: if you are black you are 11 times more likely to be under a community treatment order. Most of the recommendations of the Wessely review were to be enacted by changes within NHS England. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that he will hold its feet to the fire to change the culture, practices and training of many of our mental health professionals, because those communities are being disproportionately affected by the way the Act operates?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, I too saw the statistics on the number of black people who are detained. Clearly that is not right and is something that we need to get on top of. I know that the NHS has set up a patient and carer race equality framework to try to tackle this, but clearly we need to act on it. Again, it is the responsibility of every ICB to ensure to tackle this as well.

Times Health Commission

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Clearly, the patient has to be at the centre of everything. That is what the plan for patients is about. It is also what patient choice is about; we are using other ways to make sure that people can get treatment quickly when they need to. It involves using the independent sector, as pioneered by colleagues in this House, and learning lessons from that so that we can get on top of waiting lists, which we all agree we need to do.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, on the day when the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill has published its report, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that, while we hear a lot of talk about health, when the ideas are in the department, mental health and the situation in secure units are taken into account—we have the same problems of delay and discharge in those units—so that mental health is given the parity with physical health it deserves?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes. Unfortunately, one of the results of Covid was our understanding a lot more about the cases of mental health caused by it. We have put more investment into that as a result; it will be key to this issue as well.

Hospital Beds: Social Care

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

It absolutely is a high priority. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that the key to the whole system is flow through the system, to relieve times in A&E and ambulance wait times. That flow depends on us discharging the 13% of beds that are currently held up. That is why we put the £500 million discharge fund in place and will put £2.8 billion of funding next year, and £4.7 billion the year after, to solve exactly this problem.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I currently serve on the Joint Committee that is scrutinising the mental health Bill. Could my noble friend the Minister outline whether that 13,000 includes those who are perhaps in secure mental health beds, awaiting discharge? That of course causes backlogs, and not only into A&E: currently, some of those people could be being held in a police cell, which is not an ideal place if you need admission for assessment to a mental health bed.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will happily write on the detail, but, yes, it includes everyone who could be provided a space, either in a care home or a mental health home, and those who are fit to go home but need domiciliary care.

Abuse and Deaths in Secure Mental Health Units

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Berridge

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the work that she and others are doing in this space. I agree that we need to respond rapidly. As I said, this is very high on Minister Caulfield’s agenda, and I assure my noble friend that we will be looking to respond quickly.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am also serving on the Joint Committee mentioned by my noble friend. We received evidence that the highest rate of mortality for those held in custody between 2016 and 2019 was among those held under the Mental Health Act. If you die in a prison or an immigration centre, there will be an independent investigation under the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, and if you die in police custody, the IOPC will investigate. There is no independent investigation should you die while detained under the Mental Health Act. Is that not a lacuna that the Government could look into in relation to deaths while being detained under the Mental Health Act?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend raises a good point. My understanding is that the rapid review that we seek to put in place would involve an independent chair, because independence is key in this area. On the detail of whether that should be the case for every death, I will take back that point and respond to my noble friend.