Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, when she is intervening, to keep it short, and people cannot intervene on people who are intervening.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Noble Lords are repeatedly intervening on the different points.

As for the numbers, the estimates, based on the evidence from other countries, suggest that the estimates in the impact assessment are very low, and that the demand for assisted suicide would be much higher, so it would come into the purview of a large number of clinicians; hence the need for specialisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I sat for many hours through the debates on the Employment Rights Bill. When I said that there was a plethora of rights and that we were overdoing it, I was treated with some contempt.

I have to finish. The fear is that once assisted dying is normalised as a medical treatment, health professionals would be obliged to offer it as a medical treatment or, even worse, be under some obligation to explain this therapeutic option as part of their duty of care for eligible patients. They could be held negligent for not offering this treatment against their conscience. That would seem to be the implication of case law in the Montgomery ruling, which ruled that all reasonable therapeutic options needed to be presented to and discussed with patients. The worry here is that civil liability protections do not cover—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness bring her remarks to an end, as she is well over the 10 minutes?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is meant to be a debate. I have taken a lot of opposition points. Let me finish. The worry is that civil liability protections do not cover where a duty is owed to the patients. How can doctors who do not wish to offer or discuss assisted dying be sure that they do not face liability for failing to comply with their alleged duty to raise treatments?

When I have raised such concerns with supporters of the Bill, I have been reassured that now that we have passed the workers’ rights Bill—there are parts in this Bill, too—there will be lots of protections. They point out that, if there are any problems, staff can always use employment tribunals if they feel that they have been unfairly treated, although, as I say, trade unions are quite keen on an opt-in. But as those of us who sat through the hours and hours of deliberations on the Employment Rights Bill will know, employment tribunals have huge, years-long waiting lists. Also, such tribunals put the burden on the employee to demonstrate and prove detrimental treatment, which seems completely unfair.

It seems pertinent to note, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that as the remedy in employment cases is damages not rehiring, this could lead to driving health and care workers out of the understaffed healthcare sector—not a good result. To finish, as the noble and learned Lord is a member of the party that rightly boasts of its commitment to workplace fairness and workers’ rights, I am simply hoping that he will be sympathetic to those amendments that put workers’ rights—guaranteed—centre stage in relation to assisted dying. It is not too much to ask.