Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, removing 16 clauses—about 30% of the Bill—would potentially make this a new Bill. If this matter were not so serious, I would say that it is like saving a PDF, with versions 1, 2 and 3. We are continually reassured by the sponsor in the other place that the Bill, in the form in which it came to your Lordships’ House, had the strictest safeguards in the world, but we are now making a fundamental change to it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very powerful case, if I may say so, for judicial control to provide the independent scrutiny that we all agree is required in some form to ensure that the criteria of the Bill are satisfied in individual cases. However, I offer a contrasting view. Although I have the greatest of admiration for His Majesty’s judges—some of my best friends are judges—I do not think that they are the only people, or indeed the best people, to decide alone the grave issues that we all agree are raised by this Bill.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Committee should bear in mind what the Bill actually provides for in Schedule 2: before anyone is able to take advantage of its provisions, they must satisfy the panel that the criteria in the Bill are met. Who is on the panel? It is not simply a judge; it is a panel of three people who have a range of expertise that is, in my view, highly desirable in this sensitive context.

First, you need a legal member. It is right that there should be a legal member, because some of the issues are very much legal issues and judges have particular expertise. The legal member must either hold or have held high judicial office as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal; as a judge or deputy judge of the High Court; or as one of His Majesty’s counsel. They may also have been requested to act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. So you need a legal member.

However, you also have on the panel a psychiatrist member; that is highly desirable in this sensitive context. You have a registered medical practitioner who is a practising psychiatrist, registered in one of the psychiatrist specialisms in the specialist register, sitting alongside the legal member. Then you have someone who is registered as a social worker to add their perspective on the difficult issues—these are difficult issues—raised by eligibility under this Bill. So you have three people and a range of expertise—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am interested in the noble Lord’s view of the panel. I appreciate that he is discussing Schedule 2, but there are parts of this Bill where a unanimous decision of that panel is not needed, so it is quite possible that the medical person could be overruled by the others.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, that is not my understanding. The next point I was going to make is that paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 2 answers the very point just made by the noble Baroness. It states:

“The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member … votes against a decision to grant such a certificate, or … abstains from voting on such a decision”.


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will say if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, with great respect, the noble Baroness is wrong. The unanimous view of all three members of this panel is needed before the provisions of this Bill are operative.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

May I probe the noble Lord a little further? In the evidence given by witnesses to the Select Committee, it was said that somebody should not be allowed simply to abstain; and that, if these people are being appointed as professionals to these panels, they should express a view. At the moment, expressing no view is deemed to mean being in favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry but, with the greatest respect, the noble Baroness has not listened or read what is in the Bill. If any of the three members is unwise enough to abstain—I agree that it is highly undesirable that they should—because they are not satisfied that the case is made out, eligibility is not satisfied and, therefore, the person concerned cannot take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. Again, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks that I have misunderstood this, he will say so, but he is nodding. The noble Baroness really needs to read the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord’s assessment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the noble Baroness reads the Bill, her concern will be addressed.

Then we need to look at paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, which tells the commissioner that he or she

“may give guidance about … practice and procedure”.

I would be very surprised if the practice and procedure did not allow for interested parties to be heard or provide—this is another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—documents to be requested. If they were not requested and a person did not supply relevant documents, I would expect one of the three members of the panel not to be satisfied.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If he just looks again at paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, it may be that there is a wholesale ambiguity. Sub-paragraph (2) says:

“Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)”,


which the noble Lord has read out. Do those two paragraphs contradict one another?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

No, they do not, because the majority vote does not apply to the question of whether a certificate of eligibility applies. There may be a majority vote on other issues; for example, whether to have a hearing or to require documents, or something of that sort. But on the fundamental issue—the noble Lord is shaking his head, but that is what it says—a majority vote is not permitted on the crucial, core issue of whether a certificate of eligibility is required.

Paragraph 9 addresses another of the concerns the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has mentioned. It says, in paragraph 9(1), that panels must—I emphasise must—give reasons in writing for their decision.

Finally, it is not irrelevant—and these were points made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, if I may say so—that our courts are currently massively overburdened. Of course, judges do their best to hear urgent cases as speedily as they can, but delays are a serious problem in our court system. The Minister will no doubt have something to say about this. When the Committee considers what is the best, most effective and efficient way to address the real issues of independent assessment, it is important to bear in mind that the provisions of the Bill will apply only to those with six months or less to live. To have a system that builds in delays is going to damage the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I wish to speak to Amendments 25 and 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which my name is attached. They are amendments which I believe go to the very heart of the Bill. It is vital that if the Bill eventually comes into law the system set up for approving requests for assisted dying should have the trust of the general public. We have to bear in mind that although people generally trust one another, trust in institutions is now at a record low; to put it another way, there is in our society now a deep distrust of official bodies.

However, having said that, there is one exception: the judiciary. Between 70% and 73% of the public trust judges to tell the truth, which is why we need a court-based system. The Member in the other place, when she introduced the Bill, argued that having a High Court judge would give the system an extra layer of protection against coercion and pressure, making it the “most robust” and safest system in the world. She was right in saying that. As we now know, however, she changed her mind, and the Bill comes to us in a very different form, with panels instead of a judge.

The main reason for the change was the view that the High Court did not have the capacity to meet another set of demands; hence the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that requests should be dealt with by the Family Division. As he pointed out, although there are only 20 High Court judges in the Family Division, there are 40 other designated judges trained to hear serious cases; with this cohort there would be enough people available to hear requests for assisted dying.

The other reason for having a court-based system, which I find persuasive, is that a court has the legal powers to summon witnesses and order documents. If a judge had a concern about financial pressure being involved in some way, he or she could summon relatives or others involved to help him or her reach a decision. I am not aware that the proposed panel currently in the Bill will have a similar power. In Clause 17, “Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance”, the word “may” is mentioned eight times in subsection (4). The panel “may” call for this or that, but so far as I can see, it has no powers to make people comply.

We heard a very powerful defence from my noble friend Lord Pannick of the panel system with its experts and its other people. But I remind my noble friend that at the Second Reading of his Assisted Dying Bill in 2014, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted an amendment from my noble friend to add a review of the Family Division of the High Court. He pointed out, rightly, that the Family Division deals with very difficult cases such as the Bland case or the separating of the Siamese twins, and he argued that they could deal with very difficult cases speedily and in time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also told us that he disagreed with alternative proposals for the panel, which was, at that time, a panel of magistrates, not the kind of panel we have now. He said then:

“I think that you need the highest-quality judges to decide these issues”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1881.]


The Times, in its leader on 15 December, described the move away from a court-based system to a panel as an “ill-advised about-turn”, and it was.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed to, quite rightly, the extra pressure that will be put upon the Family Division. But on the assumption that the Bill will go through—it has, after all, been voted on by the elected House—we have to ask ourselves: which is actually safer? Is it safer to have a court-based system or to have the panel? I believe that given that it is judges who are trusted in society, we should go for a court-based system, and I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.