Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness in speaking to the issue of the commissioner. The shift from the High Court to a commissioner has been compounded. The Bill originally proposed that a High Court judge would authorise every assisted death—a feature initially championed by the Bill’s sponsor in the other place to make the United Kingdom’s law the safest in the world, with robust safeguards. That has changed dramatically and we now have a new structure, with a commissioner appointed by a Prime Minister.

The voluntary assisted dying commissioner is an important role. They will be given powers both to run and monitor the service. This creates the obvious risks of inadequate public scrutiny and independent review. It is judicial in the broad sense of involving a judge, but it does not appear to have a judicial function. The commissioner will both run the service and monitor it, which means that a highly controversial and important service will be run with little proper oversight. The commissioner will be responsible for establishing the regime and overseeing appeals as well as monitoring and reviewing its operation. In effect, as others have said, this allows the commissioner to mark their own homework.

Dr Luke Geoghegan, policy lead of the British Association of Social Workers, told the Select Committee that an independent regulator for VAD was essential. He said:

“The other thing that I think would give assurance is that no public sector organisation should mark its own homework. The voluntary assisted dying service needs robust external inspection”.


In its written evidence, the Law Society said:

“We recommend the establishment of an Independent Monitor to review and report on the operation of the Act annually”.


The commissioner could be an assisted dying campaigner or someone linked to an advocacy group. Other countries have experienced problems when the assisted dying service is run by an advocate, yet nothing in the Bill prevents this risk of conflict of interest.

In the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, developed a new judicial appointments process designed to guarantee an independent, impartial judicial appointments process and an enshrined statutory duty requiring respect for the independence of the judiciary by Ministers. Yet in the office of the commissioner, we see a potential patronage office in the political gift of the Prime Minister without any internal or external safeguards. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee how the commissioner’s impartiality will be guaranteed? Why has he changed his mind on the importance of statutory guarantees of independence? Will the public have any right to know the commissioner’s views?

Amendment 127, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, would

“make the Prime Minister’s choice for Commissioner subject to scrutiny and approval by the House of Commons’ Health and Social Care Select Committee”.

There is a lack of accountability and transparency around the commissioner’s appointment process, which is entirely in the gift of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I ask the Minister who will respond to this group: have the Government followed Cabinet Office guidelines regarding appointments? The Cabinet Office Guidance: Pre-appointment Scrutiny by House of Commons Select Committees, published in 2019, requires:

“When establishing a new public body, departments should ensure that they consider whether any public appointments to that body would meet the criteria”


for a pre-appointment hearing. It continues:

“They should seek guidance from the Cabinet Office and also discuss this with the relevant select committee Chair in a timely manner before establishment of the new body”.


Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have discussed the matter of a pre-appointment hearing with the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I have a couple of points to make on this group of amendments. Let me start on a note of agreement with the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has in this group Amendment 131A, which would require:

“Before making an appointment under this section, the Prime Minister must consult the Welsh Ministers”.


I think that is a sensible approach. We have had disagreements about whether the Bill should or should not apply to Wales but, given that it does, it is sensible that Welsh Ministers are consulted.

It is worth noting that Welsh Ministers have some views on this matter. Given that we are talking about consulting Welsh Ministers, this is probably the time to note them briefly. In the vote in the Senedd this week, Wales’s Health Minister, one of those who would be consulted, made two points clear. First, he said that the Motion in the Senedd was not a referendum on legalising assisted dying with only this Parliament able to make that decision. He also said—this is important, given that there are those outside this House who pretend that the only people who think this Bill has any flaws are a small number of Peers, when that is not the case—that he voted against the legislative consent Motion because:

“I’m also clear in my own mind that the fundamentals of the bill, as it’s going through Westminster, don’t provide sufficient safeguards for patients”.


The Welsh Health Minister, who would be one of those responsible for helping to implement it, thinks that the Bill currently does not have appropriate safeguards. He went on to say:

“Although the vote yesterday was on the devolved areas ... the net effect is to give powers in Wales to deliver a service that I don’t think I would support if I was operating over the border”.


For all sorts of reasons, it is helpful to consult Welsh Ministers. We have heard from them this week, and they are very clear that this Bill is currently flawed. Therefore, I think we are doing the right thing by scrutinising it, asking questions and putting forward amendments to improve it. We can see that it is not just Members of this House who have concerns; elected Members serving in the Welsh Government also have concerns, and it is worth getting that on the record.

The fundamental thing that I want to talk about is the prime ministerial appointment process in the Bill. I was quite surprised, not particularly that the Prime Minister was making the appointment, but that there was no other process around it. The Bill currently says that the commissioner is to be appointed by the Prime Minister. The one constraint is that:

“The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of … the Supreme Court … the Court of Appeal … the High Court”.


Other than that, there is no process set out that the Prime Minister has to follow.

There are two flaws with that. There is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set out, which is that, given that this is an area of policy, the Prime Minister may have their own views about the issue and that may influence the person they choose. My noble friend Lord Markham was quite right that the person would simply be implementing the law. The worry is that if you appoint somebody who has a very strong view about the issue and is prepared to use holding this office to prosecute advancing it, which is the concern my noble friend Lord Moylan set out, that is a problem. The concern I have with the Bill as drafted is that the Prime Minister could appoint such a person, and we would have no way of knowing in advance or of testing that person’s views before the appointment was made. We would find out about it only afterwards, and that is a real problem.

Secondly, I am afraid that we have seen examples of the current Prime Minister making staggeringly bad appointments, and the rather obvious one is Lord Mandelson. I see the Minister shaking her head, but it was a shockingly bad appointment. It is an example of a decision being made to appoint somebody and the process being circumvented in order to get the right result. The person appointed to this role is responsible for life and death issues, and as my noble friend Lord Deben said, it is extremely important that they command the confidence of the public—not just people who are in favour of assisted suicide, but those who are against it and who want to see a proper process with proper safeguards, so that that person holds public confidence.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, given the surreptitious but none the less firm support that the current Prime Minister has shown for this Bill, it is almost impossible to believe that he would not be personally involved in this appointment?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I think that is right and that that is a concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set it out very well. There are two approaches in this group of amendments to deal with that issue, and I want to explain why I have come down on one side rather than the other. There is the approach that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier set out, which is to take it away from the Prime Minister and make it an appointment by His Majesty the King on advice from the Lord Chancellor. The alternative approach, set out in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is a better one, which is to subject the person concerned to a pre-appointment hearing of a Select Committee.

That is a better approach because it is more transparent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, set out, it is actually quite a tough process whereby the candidates can be grilled about their views and their qualifications, how they intend to use the role and whether they intend to use it to advance the law in any way. They can be questioned on that. There is also a precedent, as has been mentioned in the debate, I think by my noble friend Lady Coffey: appointments to the Office for Budget Responsibility not only have a pre-appointment hearing by the Treasury Committee, but the Treasury Committee has a veto and has to consent to those appointments before they can be made by the Government. That is a good model.

So rather than changing who makes the appointment, I am content for it to remain a prime ministerial appointment, with the amendment to consult Welsh Ministers, but before the Prime Minister can make such an appointment, we should ensure that there is a pre-appointment hearing by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I am not convinced that it should necessarily be the Health and Social Care Select Committee, as there is an argument it should be the Justice Committee, given the nature of this role. That is a secondary question, but there should be a pre-appointment hearing where the person’s qualifications and motivations can be interrogated in public, and then that committee can make a decision. It would mean that the Prime Minister could proceed only with the consent of a cross-party committee—whether it should be a committee of just the House of Commons or a joint committee of both Houses may be an issue worth considering. That would achieve what my noble friend Lord Deben was arguing for: a transparent process held in public so that the public can have confidence in the person appointed, and the Prime Minister can then move forward with that appointment, knowing that it is not going to generate an enormous amount of partisan controversy, which is the last thing we want for this important appointment.

So, on balance, I am happy if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, moves his Amendment 131. I would certainly have no problem with adding that to the Bill. I am attracted to the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beith: pre-appointment hearings, with the Select Committee having a veto on the appointment, and only when that has taken place can the Prime Minister move forward. If we do that, we will have a robust process in which we can have tremendous confidence.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I have listened to two and a quarter hours of debate on this group. I was not really intending to speak, but I am afraid I cannot resist an “I told you so” moment. I am speaking not because I was name-checked by a number of noble Lords in various parts of the House, but because I think it important to emphasise the background for that name-checking.

First, we have been focusing on the appointment of the commissioner, looking only at Clause 4. I say in credit to the noble and learned Lord that it looks as though a large number of your Lordships have not read Schedule 1 to the Bill, because it is an absolute clear fact and matter of law that if the appointment of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner under Clause 4 was done improperly and not objectively, it would immediately be opened to a host of judicial review cases, which would be brought by every interested party or group looking at this issue.

I want to say something quite different, and here comes my “I told you so” moment. Some noble Lords may just about recall that, early in Committee, I proposed Amendment 120, which proposed returning to a court-based model architecture for the Bill: among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to that earlier. If we were to follow the provisions of Amendments 120 and 137, which would remove Clause 4(4)(b), (c) and (d), we would have a clear, court-based procedure. Amendment 120 could of course be improved, and I think I am going to be given some facilities by the noble and learned Lord to talk to officials in the near future about that and how it might be designed, but it would mean that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner would then have a much more limited role, which would be to monitor the operation of the Act, receive documents under the Act and report, just as other independent reviewers report, on functions that they are placed in some position of authority over.

I suggest to the Committee that we would not need to have spent the last two and a quarter hours having the debate we have had if we had that simple architecture, which would inspire the confidence of being supported by the courts, knowing that this would be subject to normal court, appeal and evidential procedures. Maybe we should come back to that at a later stage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may change his mind about that once he considers carefully and in detail what has happened this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Thirdly, I join with everybody in the Committee in deprecating vicious attacks on the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Any one of us who have been involved in this get vicious attacks outside. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she says there is a slightly testy atmosphere from time to time in here. The best that we can do to try and fight off those attacks is to be as good-natured, funny and warm as we normally are. I am looking forward to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, being warm and funny again.

Fourthly, my Amendment 131A, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, would add that the Prime Minister is to consult the Welsh Ministers before making the appointment. I hope that nobody objects to that; it is what the Welsh Senedd effectively agreed by passing the LCM. When we come to that amendment, I will move it, as I detect no objections.

Finally, I am afraid I will not provide the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, with any assistance in relation to the way he conducts himself in the Committee. He always conducts himself, if I may say so, with impeccable manners and courtesy. It is for each one of us to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

I will deal with the amendments quite quickly. They are all to deal with the voluntary assisted dying commissioner provided for in Clause 4. The voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be appointed by the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Levitt, the Minister, has indicated, as long as that stays in, then it will be subject to an open appointment procedure involving an assessment panel.

The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is perfectly commendable: should a Select Committee look at the appointment? The way that would work in practice is that it would be for the Cabinet Office and the individual Select Committee to agree whether the appointment should be subject to a Select Committee procedure. I would be in favour of it. I do not think it is appropriate to put it into the Bill, but I can see real merit in it. Iwould not only have no objection to it, but I think it is a good idea.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Given that the noble and learned Lord thinks it is a good idea and that part of the reason—I think the noble Lord, Lord Deben, touched on this—many of us have concerns is that so much of the detail of implementing this is not set out but left for decisions, what is his objection and rationale for not coming forward with an amendment and putting in the Bill so that it has to be done by a pre-appointment hearing rather than leaving it to a decision?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

With respect to the Select Committees in the other place, they should be consulted and decide whether they want it.

In the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, she draws attention to the fact that the assisted dying commissioner has a function under the Bill. That function is to receive documents, make appointments to the assisted dying panels, make arrangements in relation to such panels—this means that he or she is responsible for making sure the process runs properly—and determining the applications for reconsideration of panel decisions. That means that, if a panel says no to an applicant who wants an assisted death, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner has the power under Clause 18 to say that another panel should look at it. He or she has that power in a semi-judicial function if there is an error of law in relation to it, so that is a function.

The commissioner also has a function to monitor the operation of this Act. If noble Lords go to Clause 49, they will see that he or she is given the power to make reports, give an annual report and identify things that may be of significance in relation to it. One should not confuse this role with monitoring, for example, the performance of doctors in relation to their role. I do not see the very specific functions and the obligation to monitor and give reports, as in any way in real conflict. I think they could be done by the same person, particularly if there is a deputy to be appointed as well. I note what the noble Baroness said, but I do not think it is necessary to make provision in the Bill for a separate role for somebody to do both. I have thought very carefully about it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has been kind enough to indicate that he has had to leave, but I will deal with his point. He wants not the Prime Minister but the Lord Chancellor to make the appointment. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are both political appointments. We have chosen the Prime Minister because—even though I think there is practically nobody more important than the Lord Chancellor—the political world, for reasons I am completely unable to understand, regards the Prime Minister as more important. We have chosen the most important person in the Government to make the decision and, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think we should change that.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked why we should have a judge. I am a great admirer of judges, and I declare an interest in that I am married to a judge. The reason why we have a judge is twofold. First, ex-members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court of England and Wales—it is England and Wales that we have in mind—have high standing. They are regarded as people of calibre, which is why they are put in. Secondly, one of the specific functions in the Bill is to consider whether the rejection by a panel is an error of law. That seems to us to be appropriate to be dealt with by somebody with high legal experience. Separately, the commissioner is somebody who has to issue rules and a process for dealing with it. That is the reason for doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I accept that that may well be the case. I am simply referring to what was in Hansard in 2021. The noble Lord may have changed his mind, as we all do over our lifetime, and rightly so—if you have a completely solid view of everything throughout your life, it is not a good thing. I am not in any sense trying to demean his position in any way; he is a very highly respected member of your Lordships’ House. My point is that his reference to the euphemism is still valid in my view.

Coming to the nuts and bolts of how things would work in practice, at Second Reading of this Bill, and indeed in previous iterations in which I have had any role, I drew attention to one of the key issues: changing the nature of the service that we are funding. If we decide as a Parliament to make assisted dying, or whatever phrase one wishes to use, a legal activity, that does not necessarily mean that the National Health Service has to pay for it. Can you imagine the finance committee of a trust discussing its budget and getting into an argument? The sums may be modest, but to even put something such as that in this context, when we are talking about life and death, is fundamentally flawed, morally and in every other way. The noble and learned Lord needs to reflect on some of these matters.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Fraser for tabling these amendments. They have put forward some important questions which are worth raising explicitly with the sponsors of the Bill, so that we can hear what their intentions are and how they have reached those conclusions.

I have a number of concerns in this area, which I will set out. On a previous day, the Minister currently on the Front Bench confirmed, when we were debating resources, that if Parliament were to pass this Bill then the Government would ensure that all the requirements in the Bill were funded. That is perfectly right and proper. It was clear from that debate that there was no guarantee of any extra resources and that therefore money would be reprioritised—not just in the National Health Service but in the courts’ budget, given the impact that this Bill would have on the courts. That has clearly been reflected by what Stephen Kinnock said in evidence and by the Health Secretary, who commented on the need for prioritisation.

I do not make as much of the cost of this as some people, because I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on a previous occasion. Compared with the NHS’s overall budget, the cost of providing this service is relatively modest. I have a different concern, which is twofold. First, as has been raised already in the debate, it would be perverse if Parliament were to pass this Bill and the taxpayer were to fully fund an assisted suicide service when it only partially funds palliative care. That would set out a very weird set of priorities and choices to the country—that the taxpayer should fully fund helping to kill people and not fully fund helping them to live well.

My question to the Minister—which does not trespass on the Government expressing a view on the Bill—is, in the event that Parliament passes the Bill, and the Government rightly ensure that it is funded, will the Government ensure that palliative care is fully funded by the taxpayer? This is not a question about taking a view on the Bill; rather, it is about making sure that when the Government publish in the autumn—this is why doing it in this order is not helpful, because we are not going to hear about palliative care services until the autumn—they will fully fund those services so that the taxpayer will ensure that any individual facing a choice has a proper choice and, if they choose palliative care, they will have care fully funded by the taxpayer in the same way that they would have a fully funded assisted suicide. If you do not fund it on that basis, you are not providing people with a proper choice. That is a question for the Government to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

This group concerns the question of funding. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question: should the people who benefit from this have to pay for it? Secondly, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, raised the question of whether it should be free to the patient. Could it be provided by private providers? Separately, there were questions along the lines of: will this change the nature of the relationship between the doctor and the patient? Finally, there were questions over whether this might lead somebody to urge people to take an assisted death.

I start with the provisions of the Bill at the moment, which, subject to the amendments to Clause 41 that I propose, require that the integrated care board, or NHS England or the Secretary of State, commission the services. A separate provision, in Amendment 753A, makes provision that, in practice, they have to be free for the person getting them.

The principle that underlies that approach—my noble friend Lady Levitt is right and this is the choice that the Bill makes—is that it will be available free to somebody who wants it and who satisfies the conditions. The reason for that is that we do not want to create a two-tier system where you can have an assisted death only if you can afford to pay for it.

In evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee, Dr Michael Mulholland, the honorary secretary of the Royal College of GPs, said:

“Whether it occurs in the NHS is not our decision, but we would be very concerned about health inequalities creeping into any part of the health service … If the Bill comes through, we will want to make sure that there is not a differential in who is able to access it”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, 30/1/25; col. 278.]


The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, do not affect that. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, do, and it is for that reason that I oppose them.

I will first deal with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, which would restrict the model that could be used to private providers only—albeit that she is not saying that it should not be free. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Levitt has said, to the effect that the way it is delivered should not be restricted. I would therefore not be in favour of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, in that respect.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Does the noble and learned Lord not see that the argument that he has just made in favour of having a fully funded assisted suicide service is exactly the mirror of the argument that I made on palliative care? The argument from the quotation that he gave is exactly the argument that I made. If you fully fund this proposal but you do not fully fund palliative care and make that universally available at high quality, you have an inequality where wealthier people can get palliative care and poorer people cannot. On previous occasions, the noble and learned Lord has made it quite clear that he is comfortable with those being reasons for people seeking an assisted death. I do not think that they are. You have to fund both services on an equal basis. Does he agree?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The impact assessment suggests that in year 10, assuming the highest possible cost, it would cost £37 million in total to do assisted dying. This is not by reference to any savings and it includes not just the health elements but also the panel and the assisted dying commissioner. It is plain that palliative care should get as much funding as possible. It is patchy throughout the country and it needs more funding. For me, it is not right to delay the option of assisted dying, particularly when the amount of money that we are talking about to fund assisted dying is so much less than that amount of money, which I would fully support being provided as much as possible. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is saying. I am fully behind him if he is saying, “Let’s all put our backs into getting as much money as possible for palliative care”. But I do not accept the argument that the inadequacy in some parts of the country of palliative care is a reason for delaying the assisted dying Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I shall speak briefly to the three amendments that I have tabled in this group, to start off with. First, Amendment 472A would slightly tighten up the requirement for the panel to speak to the person’s proxy, when they have a proxy. Currently, as the Bill is drafted, they may speak to the person’s proxy, but I think that they should speak to the person’s proxy. There are no criteria set out about how they make that distinction. Given that the person’s proxy will have signed the declarations that kick off this process, they should speak to them. I do not anticipate it being a very long conversation, but it is essential that they do so.

Amendments 495D and 496D reference the appeal mechanism in Clause 18 and set out a time limit in line with normal tribunal and administrative appeals—so somebody has to appeal against the panel’s notification of the refusal of the grant of certificate within 10 calendar days. I shall not labour the point, but it is just sensible to have a time limit to make sure that there is a clear process.

I had intended to limit my remarks to that, but I have done the dangerous thing of actually listening to the debate, and I wanted to reference my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s amendment. It came out in the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hayter—a perfectly reasonable difference about exactly where we need to have transparency and balances against privacy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is perfectly at liberty to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and she obviously does, but I was surprised that she appeared to take against him for the temerity of even tabling his amendment. She said she was shocked. The presumption in the Bill as drafted, as far as I read it, is that in Schedule 2 the panels are to determine referrals in public; that is their default procedure. I give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

That is very helpful, because I can say what I said to my noble friend in private. Had we been doing this Bill at the sort of speed I hoped we would, I would have tabled an amendment that it should be in private. My personal view is that it should be. Because of the way things are happening—I will say no more—I have not tabled those sorts of amendments.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That is very helpful. It enables me to make this point, because this is where we have a disagreement. It gives the sponsor of the Bill the opportunity to set out why the Bill is drafted as it is. I will set out why I think my noble friend’s amendment is broadly right, but perhaps there is a comparison with what we already do in similar cases. That may give the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the opportunity—he may not wish to say so—for another “told you so” moment, as it is a judicial comparison.

The presumption in the Bill is that panels will do the referrals in public. There is a “subject to” on that: the chair of the panel can decide to do it in private if they feel that is appropriate. I accept that there is a balance to strike because, for obvious reasons, these panels are making decisions about personal, private matters. It is also right that there is some transparency. My noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment would give quite a big window, 28 days, to publish the notice of the panel meeting. It would also include the name of the person.

The comparison I looked at, which I thought was a reasonable one, was what the Court of Protection does. It makes decision about sensitive financial and welfare matters. It used to be the case that the Court of Protection’s presumption was to sit in private and not hear cases in public. That has changed over time. The presumption now is that cases are heard in public. Again, my understanding is that there is the ability for the judge presiding on those cases to decide for them to be in private if that is felt necessary. Even when they are in private, I understand, members of the public can make applications to go and listen to those cases. I think that is all right and proper. That appears, I presume, to be where—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is nodding.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

This is an important issue. Let me say what I think the purpose of this is, so that it can be properly debated. The norm for the panel—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is right—is to sit in public, but it is such a thing that it should be determined by the patient. If the patient says that he or she wants it in private, and they very regularly will, the chair can say, “Okay, it’s in private”. The expectation is that it would normally be in private if the person asks. However, there is still a discretion for the chair. It is not like the Court of Protection where the judge is making a decision in a much wider public interest. The reason it is drafted like this is that there needs to be some transparency but, if the person wants it in private, they should generally be entitled to that because it is so personal.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That is helpful in one sense because it is helpful to have fleshed out the noble and learned Lord’s intention. It is not helpful in the sense that he has made the Bill less attractive to me than I thought it was. I thought the presumption was more that it would be in public.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is very important that the noble Lord knows.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I do. The reason why I partly agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson is that I had a look at what the Court of Protection does in terms of publicity—the bit that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, objected to. It publishes hearings in advance—not 28 days—but it does not publish the full name of the individual. It publishes initials and what the case is about: the broad category of the decision. That strikes me as quite a good balance, which provides transparency but maybe avoids people coming to “watch a spectacle”, to quote the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

However, there is some necessity for it to be in public. The reason for that is also set out in the Bill, which says the panels

“must hear from, and may question, the co-ordinating doctor … must (subject to subsection (6)) hear from … the person to whom the referral relates”.

At this point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. That should absolutely be a must; there should not be an exception. If it is the case, as I understand from the appearance of the noble Lord with me on a media programme, that the exception is designed for cases where the person’s medical situation is very severe, they should not necessarily have to come to the panel, but at least one member of the panel should absolutely still have to go and talk to them. It really should not be okay for the panel to authorise somebody to have an assisted suicide without ever having spoken to the person concerned.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I am sorry that we are doing this, but the person will be at home, very often, and bedridden. Are we actually expecting a panel to go to their home, into their bedroom, and do this there? Again, this is not the sort of world that I know from some of the people who I see living in surroundings where it would be quite difficult even to put a spare chair in their bedroom—they could be on oxygen, or whatever—for someone to see them there.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

These are difficult issues, but the panel is being asked to authorise their death, so this is a serious issue. I accept that this is uncomfortable, and I am not suggesting the entire panel would rock up at their home, but at least one member of the panel ought to have to talk to them. The idea that the panel would authorise somebody to have an assisted death, never having spoken to them, is frankly appalling.

I shall just finish, because I want to stick to time—although I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord nicked a bit of it to explain to the Committee. I shall finish by saying that the amendments that have been put down are very helpful, because we have fleshed out this very sensible issue of how much of this should take place in public.

The other reason for it being in public is because, otherwise, there are two groups of people the panel is asked to talk to. It may hear from and question any other person and may ask any person appearing to have relevant knowledge. The problem is that, if these hearings are done in private and no one knows they are happening, I do not know how the panel is supposed to know who any of these people are; these people are not going to be able to make themselves known to the panel. So there is a clear argument about where you draw the line and there is clearly a balance to strike between openness, transparency and privacy, but it seems to me that this is a good debate for the Committee, and I want to hear where the Bill’s proposer thinks that balance should be struck. We have heard a little bit about that, and we can hear a little more later.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I am conscious of the time; it is now nearly quarter to six. So, it quite clear that this debate is not going to finish tonight and we are going to have to adjourn mid-group. This is absolutely fine, but we will take the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and maybe one other contribution. Then we will probably have to adjourn mid-group.