Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, while I oppose the Bill, I recognise we have heard arguments that people support it, so I am particularly relieved at the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to get some proper scrutiny of the Bill.

My main concern is that it is a badly flawed Bill, it needs radical improvement and, as many have already said, it is probably one of the most important Bills that this House will ever have to consider. However, this Bill is not the right way to go into law.

We start with 42 delegated powers, which will be dealt with by the Secretary of State, but more likely by the civil servants in the Department of Health. We are not asked to consider nearly all the crucial details of this enormously important Bill. We have already heard of the very real concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee and the Constitution Committee. I do not remember ever before reading in such a report words like

“the power… is inappropriate and should be removed”,

and, among others,

“the highly inappropriate nature of Clause 37(7)”.

Is the panel intended to meet in public and hear evidence? Will it meet at all, or will it be a tick-box ceremony? Why is there no coroner check? Surely that is an obvious safeguard.

Assisted dying will be paid for by the NHS but, as so many have pointed out already, only 30% of palliative care is paid for, so this is an obvious inequality. I declare an interest as a former vice-president of the Exeter and Devon Hospiscare—a wonderful institution that helped a dying friend of mine to stay at home.

The process will require the preliminary assessment of the co-ordinating doctor, the independent doctor, the panel psychiatrist and the doctor at the death. Is the NHS ready to cope with this?

We should not ignore the very real concerns of several medical colleges, including the psychiatrists, who are very concerned about the flaws in the Bill. They are, of course, expected to provide panel members. I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

It is not easy to assess when a patient will die within six months. The Lockerbie bomber lived for three years, as has already been said. Six months may also be very unfair to those with motor neurone disease or other similar diseases, who may not have the physical ability to take the final step they need to take.

Is this Bill intended to be the start? Is it to be amended shortly to increase the ability to help assisted dying to one year, two years or three years? Clearly, as others have said, this is a slippery slope. The possibility of coercion, or even more likely, the feeling of being a burden on others—especially a financial burden—is obvious.

As I have already said, this is a seriously flawed Bill. It is a Private Member’s Bill, and it is time the Government took it over and put it properly into order.