Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I said, these are not people who want to die; they are people who absolutely want to live. The only reason they are entering into this process, and the only reason they would be eligible—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I completely sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that these people do not want to die; they want to live. Would he then agree with some of the amendments that I tabled last week and spoke on? If, for example, they want to die and are then diagnosed with a terminal illness, that would be relevant to not allowing them into the process; that is, they want to die, and then the trigger of terminal illness allows the state-sanctioned administration of lethal drugs so that they can commit suicide, which is why people have raised problems about suicide ideation and mental illness. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will back some of the amendments on safeguarding that I tabled.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Baroness is talking about a slightly different circumstance where there are prior reasons, which could be mental health or other reasons, and why that could be a cause. What we are talking about here is basically the criterion on which you can first be assessed for assisted dying, which is, of course, that you have been diagnosed in the first place. To the point that, of course, people might then live longer, my experience is that they are delighted by that. Just because they have been assessed as being able to have assisted dying does not mean that they will take the medication. Again, evidence shows strongly that they will take the medication only right near the end when the pain, the loss of dignity or whatever the reason is becomes unbearable. My experience is that those people would be delighted if it was a misdiagnosis, and if they are fortunate enough to be living 30 years later, as per some of these examples, that would be fantastic. Of course, they will not have taken the medication. The point is that they take it only right at the end where there is no other choice, so to speak.

Within that, accepting that these are the people we are talking about, of course there are all sorts of different motivations why, when they are unfortunately at the point where they are looking at such a death, they might want to go ahead with it. Research shows that there are multiple reasons; it is impossible to put it down to just one. Loss of autonomy, less ability to engage in enjoyable activities, loss of dignity, loss of control of bodily functions, burden, inadequate pain relief or finances are all part of the reasons. They are all part of the research, and, on average, you will find that there are three or four reasons to do it.

So it is quite wrong to say, “No, we’ll only allow you to go ahead with this if you only have that single motivation”. As I said before, they would rather not be there in the first place, but given that they are in that unfortunate circumstance, surely they should be allowed the choice of why they wish to die.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting—and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important.

It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real.

UEFA says that it is concerned and that:

“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.


My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now.

Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, perhaps I could have a clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he had lots of experience of regulators. He referred to the Online Safety Act and Ofcom and his dealings there. I found it incredibly unhelpful to be constantly told by Ministers at that time that something was not up to them, it was up to Ofcom, even when we were making a decision about what the Ofcom regulator was going to do.

There are times when it feels as though Governments of any political stripe can outsource authority to a regulator. They tell the regulator what to do and then, when you try and hold somebody to account, the Government say, “Oh no, it’s the regulator that makes that decision”. So it actually removes any accountability. I am very keen on a mechanism for accountability and I am very anxious that, when we constantly stress that they are independent, arm’s-length regulators, that can be a way of avoiding any kind of political accountability.

However, I am also sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the kinds of things you can imagine happening if there is accountability at Select Committee level. I want accountability and I can take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about the forensic way that Select Committees can hold people to account. That sounds very positive. But it depends which one it is and who is on it. I can imagine the political fads of the day. You can imagine a Select Committee saying, “Why aren’t you doing more on”—my favourite topics—“EDI or the environment?” or “Where’s your environmental target? You’re not doing enough on that, are you?”

We have to be quite precise about the principle. On the one hand, there is the very important principle of parliamentary accountability. On the other, we also have to ensure that that does not become political interference, because it could. There could be a kind of pressure from Parliament for the regulator to adopt political priorities rather than football priorities.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have had three days of debate and it is fantastic that we have an outburst of consensus. On all sides of the Committee, we seem to agree that we are putting a lot of trust in this regulator. We have had long and thorough debates about what its objectives should be. I come back not to Erskine May or other writings but to the Gorbachev and Reagan saying, “Trust, but verify”, which I always remember. There is consensus around the Committee about how vital parliamentary scrutiny is for what we think is such an important role. I hope that, when the Minister responds shortly, she will take on board the consensus view of the Committee and respond positively.