Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of time I do not propose to summarise the many points and questions that have been raised in this debate. However, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 320A in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. The amendment seeks to set the presumption that the first assessment by the co-ordinating doctor

“must be undertaken in person, except in circumstances where this is not reasonably practicable”.

It is plain from everything that we have heard in the debate that the first assessment is a pivotal moment in the process set out in the Bill. It is the point at which a co-ordinating doctor must satisfy themselves not only of the diagnosis and prognosis but of the patient’s capacity and will and, crucially, the absence of coercion or pressure, as set out in Clause 10. These are human judgments that depend not simply on what a patient says but on the way that they say it, on physical cues and on the broader context in which the conversation takes place.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, as I did to other noble Lords, and an in-person assessment undoubtedly allows a clinician to observe matters that may not be apparent on a screen—for example, who else is present in the room, whether the individual appears comfortable speaking freely or whether there are signs, however subtle, of hesitation or external influence. At the same time, I suggest that we need to be patient-focused as well as doctor-focused, which is why my noble friend’s amendment seeks to recognise practical realities. There will surely, from time to time, be circumstances, perhaps in late-stage illness when a person may be in acute distress, where an in-person assessment is genuinely not possible. The reasons for that could be several, but in those cases we need to ask ourselves whether a live video and audio link would be preferable to a delay, or even a complete exclusion from the process.

I emphasise that the amendment is a probing one. If we decide that provision should be made for certain cases then that would surely be a classic area for guidance or codes of practice, but the key test in every instance would be what is reasonable in the circumstances. My noble friend wants to be clear that this amendment is about setting the right default for arguably the most consequential clinical judgment in the entire scheme of the Bill, while preserving professional discretion in response to the needs of the patient where circumstances require flexibility.

I have deliberately spoken in general terms when talking about what might not be reasonably practicable. The question is really the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: how rigid do we wish the Bill to be in prescribing how the system should work? I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could set out his vision of how this mechanism will work in practice and how he will ensure that the safeguards that we all want to see can still be maintained if an in-person assessment is not possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As ever, I will limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

First, I draw the attention of the Committee to operational workability concerns about Amendments 60 and 65. Under Amendment 60, professionals delivering the service would be responsible for checking whether the person was in England or Wales on multiple occasions before carrying out their duties, even if it had been confirmed that the person was ordinarily resident in England or Wales. That would place a significant burden on professionals delivering an assisted dying service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point, but it is about verifying that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I make special mention of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who spoke about the death of their father and mother. Like everyone else, I am grateful for what may have been something that was quite difficult to contribute to the debate. I hope I have not left out anyone else out who has done that.

These amendments fall effectively into two categories. The first is the England and Wales category—what do you have to be in England and Wales to do?—and, secondly, and separately, in what circumstances is a face-to-face meeting between either the patient and the doctors or the patient and the panel required?

I will deal first with the position of England and Wales, raised by Amendment 60, from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Currently, under the provisions of the Bill, the first declaration made by the patient, the second declaration made by the patient, the first assessment of the patient, the second assessment of the patient and assistance being given to the patient all have to take place in England and Wales. There was a range of other things that the noble Baroness wished to take place while the patient was in England and Wales—for example, switching from one doctor to another, which is a process. For my part, I think the Bill has broadly got right when you have to be in England and Wales. Having listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, I am not minded to suggest an amendment in relation to that, and I note that it was not picked up as an issue by other people.

The face-to-face issues were much more what the Committee, if I may say so, was interested in through the course of this debate. The effect of the debate has been, in effect, to identify four possibilities. First, Amendment 65 wants each of the occasions, namely the two doctors and the panel, to always involve a face-to-face meeting. Secondly, there should be a face-to-face meeting unless there are—I use this phrase without intending to pick up all the amendments—exceptional circumstances or practicability issues. Thirdly, the third amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which he referred to, is that there should be, to use his language, a “statutory protocol” defining where there can be remote meetings, accepting that the norm is face to face. Fourthly, we could simply rely on the existing provisions of the Bill, which is that codes of practice can be issued by the Minister under the various provisions of the Bill saying when face to face is appropriate and when it is not.

The testimony—that is what it felt like—given of cases where remote has gone wrong have enormous power and I think we are all aware of circumstances where face to face will lead to much greater and better communication. The other side of the coin, which was referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayman, my noble friends Lady Jay and Lady Blackstone and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is that there will be circumstances where, if you insist on face to face, you are, in effect, excluding some people from this right when they should have it. There are arguments on both sides.

I come away with the strongest possible feeling that the Committee thinks that face to face where possible is best but that there will be circumstances where it is not appropriate. That brings me to my third and fourth possibilities. It is wrong and dangerous to try to use a phrase such as “reasonably practicable” or “exceptional”; more is required and guidance should be given. This is not a criticism—it is a congratulation—but I do not think the words “statutory protocol” are right, but I get from what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is saying that he wants something that has the force of regulations or something similar that says, “This is what we have in mind”. Whether that is a code of practice or a statutory protocol, I am not sure. I am sure it is not what is called a protocol, but it might be something quite like that. I think the right course for me is to go away and bring back something that satisfies the Committee that there will be something—a statutory protocol or a code of guidance—that indicates when face to face is appropriate or should be the norm, but gives the circumstances where it would not be, because I get the sense of anxiety about that. I hope, in the light of that approach, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I would also be grateful to hear from the Minister on what consideration Ministers have given to the possible use of AI to establish the workability of the Bill, as I am conscious that that is the focus of the Minister’s work on this. If they are thinking about how the Bill will work, they must have reached at least a provisional view on whether AI will or will not be part of those processes and, if so, whether that is appropriate. For those reasons, I look forward to the contributions of those noble Lords.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this debate on artificial intelligence. It follows the debate yesterday, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The purpose of Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is to prohibit artificial intelligence from being used to carry out functions under any section of or schedule to the Bill. This amendment is likely to have major workability impacts that could render the Bill unworkable and/or undeliverable.

While this is a policy matter, I will pick up points and considerations that have been made on the use of AI in practice. Broadly, artificial intelligence is absolutely in use in a number of pathways. It was indeed referred to in the 10-year health plan, and the ways it is being used include imaging and diagnosis. As this amendment stands, it would preclude an improvement in speed and in quality of care for patients.

Following my comments on workability, the amendment would incur an administrative burden that is likely to increase over time. AI is increasingly used across the economy and public services, including in the NHS, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The effect of the amendment as drafted is very broad in prohibiting this use of AI from carrying out any functions under the Bill. In the future, when AI is integrated into NHS systems across the board, it may well be difficult or even impossible to quarantine systems that are used for functions under the Bill. Additionally, this may risk creating a parallel system where voluntary assisted dying services are left behind and are potentially less safe for patients.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising artificial intelligence. There was, broadly, a consensus around the Committee, which the noble Baroness supported, that the amendment is much too blunt, but as she said, fairly, it gives us an opportunity to talk about AI. I will also pick up the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford’s contribution; he rightly said, as has been echoed around the Committee, that there have been huge benefits for patients from AI.

I think four concerns were raised during the debate. The first was: will AI affect decision-making? I think the underlying point there is that we do not want machines to make the decisions that are referred to in the Bill; we want human beings to make them. In particular, the decisions I have in mind are the decision of the first doctor, the decision of the second doctor, the decision of the panel, and the decision of the doctor, at the point that the assistance is being given, that the conditions are still satisfied. Everybody around the Chamber wants that to be decided by a doctor or a panel, depending on which it is, and I completely and unreservedly endorse and accept that.

Does that need to be made even clearer in the Bill? I will consider it, but I do not think that it does. The acid test for me is that if you fail to comply with your obligations as a doctor or as a panel, you can go to prison for up to five years. It is very difficult to imagine how you could put a machine in prison, so it is pretty clear that these decisions must be made by a human being. For my part and for everybody who supports the Bill, that must remain the position.

The second concern is advertising, which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, referred to. She is absolutely right. I have made it clear that I will bring forward amendments. Those amendments, which are almost finally drafted, make provision specifically in relation to digital advertising—they do not specifically refer to AI, but we need to address that in the advertising provision. I will lay those amendments so that the House can consider them.

The third concern is slightly generalised, which is that AI is very persuasive, particularly in persuading people to do things that they do not necessarily want to do. The first thing on that is that there is a wider societal requirement to address the pervasive impacts of AI in a whole range of things. We should all try to contribute to that. More focused on this is the question of the safeguards in the Bill, because they then become incredibly important. In particular, the safeguards require that there is doctor-to-patient discussion in relation to the decision for that patient, and they are specifically required in the preliminary conversation, the first conversation and the second conversation. It is those safeguards that one must see as the antidote to the persuasive aspect of AI, but I completely accept what people said on that.

The fourth issue, which was touched on very briefly, was the operation of devices. That, I think, referred to the fact that quite a number of medical devices can be operated by, for example, the blink of an eye or something quite minor. Again, that needs to be properly safeguarded. Those may not necessarily be AI problems but problems with other sorts of developments in technology.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising this. We need to consider all the points she made. At the moment, apart from the advertising amendment, which I will bring forward, I am not sure that it requires amendment to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The Government do not have any major technical or operational workability concerns on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, which were originally tabled, as we heard, by my noble friend Lord Hendy. To make the usual point, as noble Lords will be aware, these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials, so further revision and corresponding amendments would be needed to provide consistent and coherent terminology throughout the Bill.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I raised the point that the state could be liable in cases where the companies people worked for were nationalised or owned by the state. It seems not unreasonable that in due course the Minister could express a view on behalf of the Government, because the Government could be directly—and financially—affected by the consequences of the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the point the noble Lord is making—and indeed the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made. However, as your Lordships’ House knows, I correctly restrict myself to commentary on what is before us. Should the Bill include this amendment, we will then respond at the appropriate time.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, there are effectively two entirely separate issues raised by this group of amendments. The first is whether we should extend the current eligibility to people who have an inevitably progressive illness or disease to somebody who is terminally ill because they have injuries—for example, from a car accident—that might make them die within a specified period.

I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was pressing that as an amendment, because the thrust of his remarks was much more focused on the effect on the Fatal Accidents Act. Whatever his position, I am afraid that I am not in favour of that amendment because the whole Bill has been put together and the argument for it has been based on people who are terminally ill. That is very different, for a whole variety of reasons mentioned by people, from somebody who is the victim of an injury.

I can see that people might say there was considerable moral equivalence, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was right to say how persuasive he was when I spoke to him in relation to it. However, my clear view is that we should not extend the Bill beyond its current eligibility. I should also make absolutely clear that the wording of the Bill is clear; there is no prospect whatever that a court could construe the words “illness” or “disease” as meaning “injury”. What we send from Parliament will be the way it is read.