Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I shall focus today on the group of people to whom the Bill actually relates—those terminally ill patients with capacity whose death in consequence of that illness or disease can reasonably be expected within six months. We can argue about whether the Bill should be wider or narrower in scope, or not at all, but our key focus should be on scrutinising the Bill, not speculating about legislation which may or may not come to us in future. Some time ago, I sat with a very dear friend in an oncologist’s office in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa as he learned that his prostate cancer had spread and was no longer treatable. Just over a year ago, he told me that the pain was becoming unendurable. Shortly afterwards, his daughter contacted me to say that he had died. She also sent me his death certificate. I thought that strange, but then I read it and I understood why. Under the cause of death, it states “cancer, prostate”, but above it, another cause is listed: organophosphate poisoning.

My friend would not have benefited from this Bill because he lived in another country. I share his experience only because several noble Lords have sought to restyle this Bill the assisted suicide Bill and, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Royall, I think that is quite wrong. My friend’s death cannot in any meaningful way be described as suicide. He did not choose death over life. He wanted more than anything to live, but that was not an option open to him. His choice was between the kind of death he was to have: an immediate and tragically painful one, or the prolonged and agonising death he had decided was unendurable. We should be clear. We are discussing an assisted dying Bill, not an assisted suicide Bill.

Although I believe strongly in the right of individuals to take decisions about their own lives, particularly when denying such rights may make them suffer intolerable pain in the way that my friend did, I do not discount the concerns of those who oppose the Bill. Alongside my belief in individual autonomy, I have an informed scepticism about the state and its institutions. I take seriously the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Easton, and others last Friday about inequities of NHS treatment, particularly impacting black and minority ethnic groups and people on lower incomes, and the dangers of introducing assisted dying in such a system. I was struck by the compelling speech of my noble friend Lady Parminter, which alerts us to the risk to people suffering eating disorders, and I worry about the lack of value often put on the lives of older people and the serious concerns expressed by disabled groups.

Clause 5(2), which allows a medical practitioner to initiate a conversation with a patient about assisted dying, is particularly problematic to me, not because I believe that the medical profession is full of people who want to end the lives of their patients, but simply because I know that it is full of human beings. As such, it will have its share of bad actors but, more pertinently, it will have far more than its share of tired and overstretched professionals juggling competing priorities and resources.

Finally, there is the issue of coercion. Of course most families act in the best interests of their relatives, and many make huge sacrifices to do so, but there will always be some that do not. We must make sure that the safeguards in the Bill are workable and effective.

I thank all those who have written or spoken to me with great conviction on either side of the debate. In many ways I envy their certainty, not because I lack clarity on where I stand on the principle of the Bill, but because I find it harder to discount the flaws both in the existing state of the law and in the Bill before us. I therefore welcome the proposal to hold a Select Committee to take evidence, and I look forward to detailed deliberations on the Bill.

Suicide Reduction

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I have been in discussion about a whole range of matters around veterans’ health with the Veterans Minister, and I would be very pleased to discuss this further with him in the way that the noble and gallant Lord described.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the excellent work done by Samaritans’ volunteer listening service. Is she aware of its grave concern over plans to close over half of local Samaritans branches? Can she tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of those changes? Will she meet with representatives of those volunteers to discuss their concerns?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I regularly meet with the Samaritans and doubtless will be doing so again soon. I know it is a matter for the Samaritans to decide how best to use its resources, but I will gladly speak with them.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, what signal does the Minister think it sends to the world about doing the right thing when the consequence of South Africa’s excellent science and exemplary transparency is a total flight ban, with potentially devastating consequences for its economy and that of the region, with no apparent mitigating support package from the rich world? What conversations can he have with his friends in the Treasury so that they act to give some support to South Africa and the region?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point: we should pay tribute to the openness of the South African Government, in real comparison with the openness of the Chinese Government at the beginning of the whole pandemic. It is clear that they have been transparent. It is important to recognise that one of the things about the WHO is that it relies on experts in certain countries to report early signs. I will have a conversation internally and see what can be done; otherwise, it almost acts as a disincentive to report to the WHO. We have to make sure we are not disincentivising others who may wish to report similar cases in future.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s expertise on mask specification is well known in the Chamber and I bow to his greater knowledge on this. Of course, healthcare workers, social care workers and anyone exposed to those known to be carrying coronavirus should have entirely appropriate and significant protection. I do not know the precise mask numbers, but I would be glad to write to the noble Lord to confirm the current guidelines.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that the comments he just made about the effectiveness of masks are not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense? Will he withdraw them?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I do not accept that at all. The noble Lord does this debate no favours by using that kind of language. The argument I make is extremely reasonable. It is supported by the Chief Medical Officer and the other scientific advisers we have in government. I would like to ask the noble Lord to reflect on the manner of that question.

Covid-19: One Year Report

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of H&O Communications. I remember thinking, immediately before speaking on the debate on the Coronavirus Bill last year, that for the first time since the end of the coalition in 2015 I was heartily glad that I was not in government any more. The scale of the challenges that the Government faced were almost overwhelming. They had to tackle not only a public health emergency unprecedented in our lifetime but a national and international economic crisis as well. Inevitably, the Government made mistakes—any Government would have done—but they also got some things right, most notably the vaccine programme and the rapid deployment of fiscal firepower into the economy to protect employment and businesses. There were some significant gaps, which I will come to later, but overall the Chancellor acted boldly and decisively at a crucial moment and he should be commended for that.

In other areas, the Government’s performance proved to be less impressive. My principal complaint is not about the mistakes that were initially made—as I said, any Government would have made mistakes, even if they were different ones—but about their failure to learn from them. In the debate on the Bill last year, along with other Peers, I raised the position of the self-employed who were facing severe financial hardship. I welcome the fact that the Government subsequently created the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, but it excluded huge numbers of people, as my noble friend Lady Brinton underlined. Most notably, it excluded all self-employed people who trade through a limited company, any who had not traded through two tax years, which particularly impacted young people, and any who had had profits of over £50,000 in one of those previous tax years, even if their business could no longer be carried on at all because of coronavirus restrictions. Despite repeated appeals, the Government refused to listen and provide relief, leaving without support millions who had operated absolutely properly under all the tax and company law rules that exist. If the Government think that those rules are not right, they should change them. They should not penalise the people who followed them.

Another area where the Government refused to listen was protecting people who were required to isolate under the coronavirus rules from loss of earnings. This was not only damaging to the people impacted, particularly the self-employed; it fatally undermined public health. In the absence of proper provision, many inevitably went out to work, despite a positive test, or avoided being tested at all. There can have been few more penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions taken by the Government, because the impact of the virus spreading was further catastrophic damage to the economy. More importantly even than that, an unquantifiable number of people almost certainly and unnecessarily lost their lives as a result.

As I said at the outset, my criticism is not that mistakes were made. It is that the huge amount of good will and cross-party support that existed for the Government at the start of the pandemic was squandered. Hubris rather than humility became the dominant theme, and, in that hubris, the Government failed to listen to others. As a result, instead of correcting initial and understandable mistakes, they persisted in repeating them.

Last year, we granted the Government extraordinary powers, which we would not have dreamed of doing in any other circumstance. In return, we expected them to be used with great care and in the spirit of cross-party unity in which they were granted. That did not prove the case. Instead, advice went unheeded, cronies were rewarded, and the Government’s public health messaging was fatally undermined at Barnard Castle and buried in the Downing Street garden by a special adviser consumed with self-regard and dripping with “The rules are not for me” arrogance.

A Government who respected the spirit of unity, which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks and which allowed the Bill to pass so rapidly into law last year, would have returned this year with a replacement. It would have been proportionate to the situation we currently face, compared to the emergency we encountered last year, and it would have removed the obnoxious powers that have so damaged civil liberties. This time last year I swallowed hard, put my trust in government and voted for draconian legislation in the face of the emergency. That we are back here a year later with a contemptuous take-note Motion, which prevents us making any of the many necessary amendments to the legislation, underlines the extent to which the Government have betrayed that trust. They will not have it again.

Covid-19

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments. I am personally extremely committed to travelling. I would fight for the right to travel and I believe in its value. I am extremely grateful to the airports, the airlines, the hospitality industry and all those involved in travel for the huge contribution they have made to the sum of human wealth and experience. It is heartbreaking that we are having to bring in these measures and it is done with huge regret. The cost and implications for the businesses and employees involved is extremely harsh, and we regret it enormously. It is simply a fact of the fight against this pandemic that it is necessary. I cannot confirm for sure that details of a timetable for airlines will be in the schedule in the week of 22 February, but I assure my noble friend that we are in constant touch with both airlines and airports. Their arguments to us are extremely well made and their plight is understood and sympathised with, and when the time is right we will do everything we can to support the travel industry in getting back to where it once was.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

The Minister told the House in his earlier response to the Front Benches that there was no point in securing our borders before the new variants emerged. Was that not exactly when we should have closed the borders in order to prevent the new variants arriving in our country, rather than shutting them once they had? Why did he suggest that the new variants were unexpected when, as I understand it, mutations were always highly likely, if not inevitable?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The virus mutates all the time and minute variations have happened from the very beginning. However, this virus has been unusual in not having profound mutations; it had not changed its seriousness, its transmissibility or its escapology in a meaningful way until the end of last year. Those were not—how shall I put it?—completely unexpected, but they had not been identified before. When they were identified, we changed our tactics, our strategy and our approach. Our determination to keep out variants of concern is manifested in these proposals, and we have moved extremely swiftly to enforce border control as the threat has mounted.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset of the pandemic in Europe, medics from south-east Asia, who had the most experience of the virus and consequently the best understanding of it, made it crystal clear that the wearing of face masks, while no panacea, was one of a number of important measures in combating it and in making people less vulnerable to other seasonal viruses such as the flu. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out comprehensively how cloth masks in particular can be highly effective as part of a wider approach. She also made an important point about the reduced effectiveness of disposable masks and the ecological damage that they do. For some reason, at the outset of this pandemic we chose to ignore the advice from south-east Asia, preferring to reinvent the wheel because we somehow thought that we knew better.

At a time when the Government were closing businesses, restricting travel, preventing children and grandchildren seeing their parents and grandparents, and confining people to their homes—the greatest interference in British people’s civil liberties since World War II—for some reason they would not take the simple step of requiring, or even just requesting, that people protect themselves and others by enduring the minor inconvenience of wearing a face mask. It was not until 11 May, nearly two months after the lockdown, that the Government first advised the public to wear face coverings. It was not until 15 June that they were made mandatory on public transport, three months after the lockdown began, and it was not until four months later that they were required in shops, supermarkets and transport hubs—and even later in hospitality venues.

The Government preferred to spend their time focusing on grandiose claims about world-beating apps that never arrived, rather than on adopting and enforcing effective infection control, including masks, and, as the Minister said, handwashing and social distancing. They have only recently started focusing their public messaging on these three basics together—“Hands, Face, Space”—when those should have been there from the outset. It is impossible to know how many lives would have been saved if we had listened to advice from our colleagues in south-east Asia much earlier, but what is unforgivable is that today we still lag way behind in the measures we have taken and the means of enforcement.

The regulations we are discussing, which require face coverings to be worn in taxis and private vehicles, came into force only on 24 September. It is extraordinary that it was not a requirement from the outset. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Emerging data has demonstrated that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers as more likely to be vulnerable to Covid-19”.


I am very surprised that it has taken over six months to arrive at what seems a reasonably self-evident supposition, because of not only the disproportionate number of drivers from more susceptible groups, as referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum, but the confined space in which they operate. I understand that even under these regulations, the requirement is upon passengers and not drivers. This seems an unfathomable policy decision and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it in his reply.

The second set of regulations, as we have heard, require face coverings in theatres, bars, restaurants and pubs, except when seated. These did not come into force until a day later—not until 24 September. Again, what was the Government’s rationale in applying such a basic public health measure so late in the day after we started to reopen the economy?

Finally, on enforcement, over the past weeks, the penalties for failure to wear a face covering that are displayed at London railway stations, such as the ones I have seen at Waterloo and Clapham Junction, have moved from £100 one week to £3,200 the next and £6,400 the week after that. Who thinks this sort of thing up? Do they not realise that, far from making the public think that the Government are getting a grip, it makes them think that the law is a joke—doubly so, because they can see that enforcement appears almost entirely absent? I know now, although only from reading the regulations, that the £6,400 figure is a maximum for repeated offences. But as far as I am aware, the public are not avid readers of statutory instruments, so they will not know that. They will regard the fine displayed as frankly absurd—as I did when I saw it. As enforcement seems to be most notable for its absence, it is hard to imagine anyone being challenged enough times for the maximum fine ever to be applied, so what is the point? In that context, can the Minister tell us how many fines of £100—the minimum—have actually been issued and what is the maximum fine that has so far been employed?

As the Minister stressed, face coverings are no panacea, and as my noble friend Lord Greaves said, we often do not have the evidence that we would like when making decisions. But if we are going to get ahead of this disease, we are going to have to act much faster. Sometimes we are going to have to use our common sense and act ahead of having all the evidence that we would want. We need to have an enforcement regime that is proportionate and effective, with a verifiable system of exemptions.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Friday 24th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I have four questions for the Minister.

First, why were face coverings not mandated at the same time as the relaxation of these rules or the earlier decision to allow non-essential retail to open? Indeed, why were they not mandated from the outset when the medical advice from south-east Asia, which had the most experience of the pandemic, was that they were a key element in tackling the coronavirus?

Secondly, on 14 July, when the Secretary of State announced that they would become compulsory, he told the House of Commons:

“The death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher among men and 60% higher among women than in the general population.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1395.]


Was he aware of those statistics when these regulations, and those allowing shops to open, were being considered? If not, what assessment was made of the risks to staff?

Thirdly, in the light of these shocking figures, can the Minister explain why it has taken 10 days for the mask mandate to come into effect? Finally, what assessment has been made of the number of deaths that could have been avoided if face coverings had been compulsory from the start of lockdown?

Draft Human Tissue (Permitted Material: Exceptions) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest: until recently, I was a non-executive director of NHS Blood and Transplant.

I welcomed the Government’s decision to support the deemed consent Act in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and remain fully supportive of the move to deemed consent. Every year, hundreds of people die while awaiting a transplant, as the Minister said, and hundreds more come off the waiting lists because their health has deteriorated to the extent that they cannot receive a transplant. Anything we can do to reduce those tragic numbers is welcome. Deemed consent is not a panacea, of course, but the evidence from Wales is that, combined with an effective communications plan and, most importantly, a public debate and family conversations, it can mark a profound shift.

The Minister is aware of my concerns about the timing of bringing deemed consent into effect and the impact that it may have on public awareness, so I will not dwell further on this point in the limited time available. However, I hope that he will be able to tell the House what advice and representations his department received on the wisdom, or otherwise, of this decision.

Specifically, I want to ask him about NHSBT’s excellent advertising campaign and the Government’s assessment of its effectiveness in the light of the Covid-19 crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Have the Government considered the impact that the current health crisis may have had on the ability of advertising to cut through? I would also be grateful if the Minister could tell the House why the draft codes of practice were not published online at the same time as the laying of these regulations—a matter highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The Minister will be aware of the immense sensitivities around these issues. It is not good enough for the Government to drop the ball in this way. I am not sure if this is a result of the timing of the regulations, as the DHSC was obviously struggling to address the impending Covid-19 crisis at the time, but we need an explanation from the Minister. Sadly, as he pointed out, the transplant system is unable to work effectively during the Covid-19 crisis, but it is hoped that these life-saving and life-changing operations can resume as soon as possible.

When they do, the Government need to be aware that legislation alone will not meet the demand for transplants. What is required alongside the legislation is adequate resourcing of the transplant apparatus throughout the NHS. This is not a matter that can be delivered by NHSBT alone; it requires a whole-system approach. I hope that the Government take that fully into account. I also hope that the Government recognise the importance of new machine perfusion techniques to make the best use of donated organs, that these techniques will be properly funded, and that British ingenuity and innovation in this regard will be backed.

We also need to ensure that transplant medicine remains an attractive field for new entrants into the medical profession. It can be a tough life, with specialist nurses and transplant and retrieval surgeons on call at all hours—ready to travel often significant distances to retrieve an organ and save a life—and specialist nurses in organ donation playing an unparalleled role in helping grieving families at times of great distress and ensuring that the process works at every level.

I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the dedication of specialist nurses and transplant surgeons and the difference that they make to so many lives. They need to be properly recognised for the amazing job that they do. Most importantly, however, we should recognise organ donors and their families, who give the most precious gift available: the gift of life.

Covid-19: Extent of Infection

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

I reassure the noble Lord that testing has been opened up to all care homes. I pay tribute to the CQC, which played a pivotal role in providing access to Britain’s 12,000 care homes in this regard. Mass testing is an option that we are looking at, but I remind the noble Lord that South Korea, where there is an extremely energetic track-and-trace facility, carries out on average 20,000 tests across the country—fewer than we do in Britain on an average day.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, we all understand the immense pressure that the Minister’s department is under, but does he agree that it is unacceptable that capacity is still only at 38,000 tests a day and that much of that very limited capacity is not being used, not least because the testing centres are often in out-of-the-way places that NHS and care staff cannot easily reach? Was an assessment of public transport accessibility made before these centres were chosen, and will the Minister’s department now urgently work with drive-through restaurant chains and other accessible venues to ensure that testing centres are in places that NHS and care staff can easily attend?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord raises a completely valid point on the accessibility of drive-in centres. They suit some people but not all, as he rightly points out. That is why we have brought in at-home testing arrangements, delivered mainly by Amazon. They started on Monday, and we are very ambitious for both their scale and their scope, particularly for the demographics of which he speaks.