Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, to some extent this group of amendments goes to the core of a lot of the potential downsides of this Bill because, whether we like it or not, it is going to be a source of coercion.

If we go back a few weeks to the issue that was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, concerning the role and the purpose of the National Health Service, clearly, that would need to be changed because we are talking here about a mechanism for ending life rather than a service that does its best to preserve life. To anybody who has had to spend a lot of time around hospitals—be it as a consumer of, or a relative of a consumer of, NHS services; or if you have had any role in government, even at regional level, dealing with health services—it is inconceivable that looking at the balance sheet is not going to be an issue for a clinician and a trust. That is the nature of the beast if you are the finance director of a trust and it is over budget, as they nearly all are. In Canada, we see that some people are boasting about the money they have saved by providing assisted deaths. I do not believe for one moment that that factor can be airbrushed out of this equation as far as this legislation is concerned. While I do not necessarily accept or agree with every amendment in this group, it draws our attention to the principles at stake.

It is in those circumstances that we have got into the habit in this debate of euphemisms. We call one thing by a certain name, but we know it actually means something else. In that regard, I draw the attention of the Committee to a debate on assisted dying that took place during the last iteration of this Bill, proposed by Lady Meacher, on 22 October 2021. This is the point I want to try to get across. Incidentally, that Bill had 13 clauses and 10 pages, compared to the 59 clauses and 51 pages we are looking at today. After Lady Meacher proposed her Bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who I think is not in his place, spoke. He said that the Bill should refer to “euthanasia” rather than “assisted dying” as the Bill’s title did not represent what was intended. He went on to provide the Greek definition of what the word “euthanasia” means.

These amendments go to the core of a couple of issues. The first is the rationale behind the National Health Service in the first place, and how it would be changed and turned if it is carrying out a service which is anything but—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the point that the noble Lord is making is very interesting, but he may have heard my noble friend Lord Winston say previously in the debate on the current Bill that he has changed his mind. He may well have changed his mind about the words that we use in relation to assisted dying.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, as a clinician for 50 years in the NHS, I find the noble Lord’s suggestions quite offensive. We have been asked to be kind today and I would ask him to be a little kinder to NHS clinicians in their decisions to try to help people at the end of life.

I just point out to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that when you are talking about a fully funded palliative care service you are talking about millions and millions, and what has to be allocated. It is exceedingly difficult for the NHS to come to that decision, particularly in light of the fact that insufficient clinicians have been trained in that area, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will agree. Certainly, for the assisted dying service we are talking a few thousand—not anything like the sums of money that a palliative care service costs. Let us be realistic about what we are asking for.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I shall briefly intervene. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will answer this later, but I want to put on record that nobody who is a supporter of this Bill—an amended Bill, as it goes forward—would ever put costs as the major reason for supporting it. I just want to put that firmly on the record.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Could I come back on that? I never said that it was a major reason: I just said that it was a consideration that had to be made. Budgets are very strapped in the NHS at the moment and, if it can ensure that people who are blocking beds vote for assisted dying, that will save the hospital money. That is just a fact of life.