Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I come at this debate from a point of personal experience. My mum, Judy, was 62, a fit and healthy Macmillan nurse, when, out of the blue, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given weeks to live. She was taken to a hospice three weeks later, barely conscious, and, very quickly, the clinicians gathered round her next of kin and suggested that she was in a lot of pain, that she did not have long, and that maybe helping her to take an earlier train would be the kind thing to do. We all agreed, and we all thank that hospice to this day for the kind and peaceful death that they gave her.

This happened not in some far-away land but right here in the UK. I think we are all probably aware of many such instances in the UK where, informally and quietly, terminally ill people are helped to have a kinder, compassionate, pain-free death. It is because of that experience that I am in favour of finding a way to allow other people to experience a kinder, safer death in a way of their choosing. I know from talking to many terminally ill people that it gives them great comfort knowing that they could have the ability to take that earlier train home.

I understand the concerns of many noble Lords here. I understand that, for some, it is a point of principle, for religious or moral reasons. I understand the concerns that many others have about the risks presented by the Bill, which is why I support the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in her amendment to have a Select Committee scrutinise the Bill to make it the best it can possibly be. That is, after all, what we do best in the Lords.

However, I believe that arguments against the Bill about the burden on the NHS can be addressed by making sure that the Bill enables provision by the voluntary sector, just as happens with our excellent hospices, which are majority funded by voluntary rather than government money. I do not believe that arguments about undue burden on the NHS should be a reason to oppose the Bill.

After speaking to many terminally ill people, I think that it is wrong to equate their wish to die in comfort and without pain with suicide. My experience is that these people very much want to live but unfortunately know that they will shortly die. They therefore want to have the choice to do that in a way of their choosing, with comfort and in a pain-free way.

To conclude, the Bill is about choices—whether terminally ill people are given the choice voluntarily to face a kinder, pain-free death and to take that earlier train home, or whether we choose that that choice should be denied to them because we feel that, somehow, they are not fit to make that choice or may have felt coerced into it. Giving people that choice is a fundamental right, which is why I want to work on the Bill to ensure we do it in the kindest and safest way.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am going to finish very quickly if you do not interrupt me. The time limit is very clear, and I am going to stick to it, but I am finishing my point. I was coming to the end of my point, and that was not necessary. The Government Chief Whip made it clear that these are incredibly important issues, and we will debate them with courtesy and respect. I will treat people whom I do not agree with on this issue with courtesy and respect. As I have not exceeded the time limit, I do not expect to be yelled at. Let me just finish my point and then I will sit down.

My experience—I am going to go over the time limit only because I was interrupted—as a former constituency MP is that it is better to get these things right in advance, when you draft the legislation, and not spend years trying to fix them afterwards.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert on delegated powers, so I must admit to a bit of confusion. I hope that either the Minister or the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—or maybe both—can help clear this up.

My understanding of what the Bill is trying to do is to enable the Welsh Senedd to make a choice. If the amendments were to go through as drafted, they would deny that choice, because they would rule out people living in Wales from being able to choose whether they have assisted dying, whereas what I think the Bill is trying to do—I hope that can be clarified in the response—is state that the legislation will enable the Welsh Senedd to decide whether and how it wants to implement the Bill. When the Senedd does that, it can take into account the points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made about how the two services could sit alongside each other.

If we were to pass this amendment, we would deny the people of Wales that choice. That cuts right across the principles that the noble Lord, Lord Weir, set out when he said that the decision should be taken in Wales. The amendment would mean that the decision was taken here, which would deny the people of Wales that choice.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this debate and raising very important questions about devolution, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will first address the amendments specifically and then respond to some of the comments raised in the debate.

These amendments, along with a number of others in future groups, would remove Wales from the Bill. Ultimately, I am concerned that this steals the ability of the people of Wales to exercise their choice over how they spend the end of their lives. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, that could create a two-tier system, where people in England can decide while people in Wales are not granted that choice. By removing Wales from the Bill, we leave people in Wales in limbo. That is not the case for Scotland, because Scotland would be able to decide for itself.

It would be irresponsible of us neither to include Wales as part of this legislation nor to allow the Senedd to have the powers to legislate on this important matter. While criminal law remains reserved, health is not. If this Bill shall pass, it will have serious consequences for a completely devolved matter in Wales. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. To address this matter, I have tabled amendments that will be debated in a future group that could resolve this very issue.

As I urged at Second Reading, we must reflect carefully not only on the moral weight of the question before us but on the constitutional responsibility we bear. We must respect and protect the role of devolved Parliaments in matters that are clearly within their responsibility. As noble Lords have mentioned, in a future debate we will discuss giving the Senedd the complete right to legislate in this area. We must not deny people an important choice just because of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I was a member of the committee. The committee noted that we did not take evidence from terminally ill people. That was not a decision that we took as a committee. Suggestions were made and the clerks did not, in the end, manage to provide us with witnesses who were terminally ill, but it was not a decision that was formally taken. I agree that, had we taken evidence from—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

With due respect, I must say, as one of the committee members, that that point was put forward on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, there was a majority of people in the committee of seven to five against, by the way the nomination process worked, so it was the feeling of those members not to invite terminally ill people to speak. The minority of us who were in favour of the Bill tried on a number of occasions to hear them, but that was not allowed.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is helpful to your Lordships’ House to be going into discussions that included private discussions. The Motion that the House passed did not suggest that. Noble Lords will also know that there are ethical concerns about calling people who are so vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, may I clarify that? I have just checked the information. My noble friend is correct in what she says, in that the support was 50:50, but the majority of respondents—64%—opposed expanding eligibility and 65% of them were not confident that consent could act as an adequate safeguard against unfree choices, such as those resulting from coercion or psychopathology.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear, I think, that we all want the same thing here. Whatever one’s feelings about it generally, if this Bill is passed, we want to make sure that the person is in the right position—I do not use either “capability” or “ability”—to make a decision on whether to take part in assisted dying.

We all want the same thing, so what we have to decide is whether we believe that the existing framework, the Mental Capacity Act, can work here. I have heard a body of evidence that says it can. I respect in particular the evidence from Sir Chris Whitty, who, as Chief Medical Officer, is probably our highest adviser in the land in the medical space. He believes that it can do it. I also respect the opinions of the psychiatrists who have written in and said that, in their professional opinion, they are able to use the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person is in the right position to take part in assisted dying. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others have made out, we have a body of evidence and 20 years of experience showing that the Mental Capacity Act can work and is already acting in very similar situations.

One can argue whether these two things are exactly the same, but they are pretty similar: both involve life-and-death situations, such as “do not resuscitate” orders, people deciding not to eat or drink any more, and people with motor neurone disease asking to come off ventilators. These are all very similar situations that, today, are decided under the Mental Capacity Act. So we have a system that is being used and which our best adviser says works, and we are setting an unknown definition against that. If we set about asking, “What do we mean by ‘ability’?”, we would probably all come up with very different answers. This would be untried and tested; it may take years, if not decades, to find something, against something that exists today. It would be very confusing: when do you use the Mental Capacity Act and when do you use this new definition?

Again, we all want the same thing: for the person to be in the right position. Our highest expert in the land says that the Mental Capacity Act can do it, and a number of psychiatrists are also saying that they can make the assessment under it. To my mind, that is what we should be considering.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Markham, just said. We have a tried and tested way of measuring people’s capacity, but we do not have a single tried and tested way of measuring people’s ability. That is a very broad concept, and anybody who has worked in education at any level will say with absolute certainty that it would be unwise to replace what is currently in this Bill with “ability”. There is no definition of it—it can cover a vast variety of different kinds of ability—and finding an adequate test could take years.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I take noble Lords back to when they were young; we have all been there. I suspect that we all remember the odd and what may now seem very troubling ideas that sometimes passed through our minds during those years. Many of us have also watched our children—and for some of us, I dare say, grandchildren, though I am not there yet—navigate that turbulent stage of life. These formative years are full of experimentation, confusion and growth. They are not the years in which irreversible decisions should be entertained. Therefore, I am very much in favour of increasing the age limit to 25, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, suggests.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a really good discussion showing the range of views and expert opinion that we have here. I think I heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that he was willing to look at the age question. I think he said that he was more likely to add safeguards—

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, specifically ruled out changing the age. He wanted to put qualifications on it; that was as far as he went.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The point I was making—I am sure he will speak for himself in a moment—was that he was willing to look at that. He said that he was more likely to look at additional safeguards between 18 and 25. But I think he said—again, correct me if I am wrong—that he is willing to have further discussions with a lot of the experts we have here, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass and Lady Finlay, and, I am sure, others, to look at the whole question around age, as a product of the good debate that we have had here today.

I think I heard that the noble and learned Lord is taking on board the comments; he is willing to go away and look at this whole question with the experts here and, I hope, come back with something that reflects the reasonable view of everyone here today. I think we are being shown a way forward. I am keen to hear later about a lot of other things, such as the residency question and a lot of the other groupings, so at this point, I think we have what we are looking for—have we not?—in terms of a good discussion on this. I hope that we can go on to talk about some of the other groups.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Just to clarify my position, I was responding to the debate which gave rise to real concerns about the age. I understood the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass and Lady Finlay, to say that perhaps a way forward would be to see whether there were additional safeguards from 18 to 25. That would involve me having a discussion with them and, if they were satisfied that there were additional safeguards and that they thought the age of 18 was right, that would obviously have an effect on me. If they put other arguments, I would obviously take them on board as well. My experience of the House is that, if one sees a way forward, before one continues making the same arguments as before, one sees whether a compromise that sensible Members of the House think would be enough works and whether it could attract support on Report. That was what I was thinking.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. It is of course the case that the Select Committee was very truncated in its ability to hear evidence. That was a decision of the House and, although we would have preferred to hear evidence from others, it was not possible.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I just say, if I may, as a member of the Select Committee, that it was decision by the Select Committee not to hear from terminally ill people. It was not to do with the time available; it was to do with the majority of the committee being opposed to hearing from terminally ill people.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I cannot comment on the deliberations of the committee. I think there are others here who possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21, tabled in my name, from personal experience. The richness of the debate today shows that, even in your Lordships’ Chamber, we all have completely different experiences of how we access a GP practice.

I tabled this amendment partly from personal experience, trying to look at how we provide continuous care to a patient. As for my own experience, I am disabled, not sick, but I have had some very interesting experiences of interacting with doctors. Fairly recently, I was asked by a doctor how I caught spina bifida and had to explain to him that it was congenital. As for my husband’s experience of the healthcare system, he had a spinal cord injury in 1984 and, at a recent visit, was continually asked whether it was in 1884 that he had his accident—I know he looks good for his age, but not that good. This is not to be flippant, which I have been accused of before. It is actually to try to ensure that we have proper continuity of care for a person who wishes to end their life.

My amendment is also grounded in coercion detection and the limitations of any capacity assessment. When I tabled it, I was thinking that perhaps a GP could provide extra knowledge to contribute to the decision that was made. But then I heard of the experience of my noble friend Lady Falkner, which is absolutely appalling. It shows that there is far more work we need to do, not just on the National Health Service but on making sure we provide the right care. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the NHS we wish to have. Well, this might be a chance to think about the NHS we wish to have.

I take this opportunity to welcome my new noble friend Lady Gerada and the experience she brings to the Chamber. I have to say that it has left me slightly more confused. I have amendments on data recording, which we will be debating later. Her comments show that data recording and sharing is really important. The part I got a bit confused about was that, if there is a named clinician as part of that process, does that not ultimately feed in to the points that have been made today? I would welcome the chance to discuss that with her outside the Chamber.

Continuity of care is really important, and how it relates to improved patient outcomes. In 2012, 56.7% of patients had a preferred GP, but that is declining. There is a link between your preferred GP and being able to access that GP. The decline has happened regardless of baseline continuity, rural or urban location or level of deprivation. Providing a better experience to patients will make those final weeks and months better for them. The Royal College of General Practitioners published excellent work in 2021 on why the patient’s relationship with their general practitioner is so important. Research on coercion and undue influence demonstrates that standard capacity assessments, while necessary, are not currently sufficient to identify subtle forms of coercion. That is why I tabled an amendment.

In response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick, about what happens if a GP dies, I am happy to be corrected, but I thought the provision in the Bill about your doctor dying would cover a general practitioner as well as any other doctor involved in the process.

What we are talking about here are really complex decisions. Consulting an established GP or GP practice might mean that they possess the nuanced knowledge which would help somebody make a choice. The requirement that GPs confirm that they have a good understanding of the individual’s personal circumstances represents, to me, a better form of safeguard, ensuring that this knowledge actually exists. We cannot assume anything during this process. The assessment should provide abuse detection capacity unavailable in other types of consultations. For individuals whose care is family dependent, the home visit element—which I had, not so long ago—can play an important part in identifying coercion. If the debate has raised nothing else today, it is that this is a really complicated issue which needs much further work.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may just ask a question on that. Everyone believes a GP should be able to conscientiously object. But, in all of this, I have not heard an answer to what happens in that circumstance. Surely, we need a circumstance, as happens today, involving a team-based approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said. Otherwise, you could have formed a great relationship with a GP who then conscientiously objects—which we think is absolutely suitable—withdraws himself or herself from the situation and can no longer take part in it. Surely a team-based approach is the better approach.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

The comments made by my noble friend Lady Gerada explaining the team-based approach seem very sensible in terms of providing that continuity of care. I am very lucky that I see the same GP every time I go; it is interesting to understand that not everybody experiences that. I am not absolutely welded to it being a single GP. For me, it is about ensuring that we have continuity of care and the right support for an individual, and doing it in the right way that enables them to make the best choice, while not experiencing any coercion in making that decision. The more frequent contact means that a GP or a practice may be able to understand some of the really difficult family complications that we absolutely know go on.

Many noble colleagues who worked on the then Domestic Abuse Bill will see that coercion can be very subtle and understated and happens in numerous different ways. We have a duty to make this Bill the safest Bill in the world. The noble and learned Lord will say that it is. We slightly disagree on it being the safest Bill in the world, but we have a duty to make it safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the moments in the Bill that most concern me are when it gets nearest to saving money. There are several occasions on which that appears to be the case, particularly when talking about people for whom many have no sympathy at all, and when you are talking about a service in which we all know we are failing. It cannot be true that any Member of this House believes that our prisons are as they should be. Yet we imprison more and more people. We imprison twice as many people as the French or the Germans. I still do not understand why we cannot take this seriously, but we still go on doing it.

First, can one really think that someone in prison circumstances finds it possible to make the same kind of decision as people who are not? Just simply, those circumstances are the pressures, the crowding and the fact that you are not in any company that you would have chosen. I do not believe that those are the circumstances in which the Bill’s proponents meant for decisions of the sort we are talking about to be made.

The second issue is: what about the pressures there? We have been talking about the concerns of those who find themselves under pressure. Do we really believe that there will not be many prisoners for whom the whole issue will be presented as, “You will be better off and we will be better off if you make this decision”?

The third issue is surely this: we know that prisoners have much worse healthcare than people outside prison. Therefore, the fact that they are told that they have but six months to live is much more difficult than it would be if they were in normal circumstances. I put it no more sharply than that, but it does seem to be true.

Fourthly, earlier on, we were talking very strongly about the difficulty that the Government are willing to fund this when they are not funding palliative care for very large numbers of people in the country. I therefore come back to my deep concern that it will become so much easier for people to die than to continue.

The right reverend Prelate, whose experience is remarkable and whom I admire enormously for her work in the prisons, has reminded us of how old the prison population is and how much older it is becoming. I just do not think that those of us in this House who really believe that our major job in this Bill is to protect the vulnerable can possibly agree that people in prison should be included under the Bill. We should take them out.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

May I just offer a different perspective on this? It has been an interesting debate. One of the main reasons I am supportive of assisted dying is kindness—kindness to the people who are scared about the inevitable end of their life and kindness in that they face a lot of pain. They see assisted dying as a way of relieving themselves from that pain.

In this debate, are we saying that people in prison are not deserving of that kindness? People in prison have been deprived of their liberty because of the crimes they committed, and that is the punishment that they have been given in the face of the law. That is the debt being paid to society. But are we saying at the same time that they do not deserve the same kindness that we would give to others and that they should face pain because they are in prison, whereas others should not? That is my perspective on this.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I put a question to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am really concerned—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I did not realise that the noble Lord was intervening on me, but I will just say that, for me, it is very difficult to have that argument. Kindness is absolutely the central point of everything that I believe in, so I am very vulnerable to that question. But the truth is, the Bill does not talk about pain at all. There is nothing in the Bill about pain. This is about a totally different circumstance. One of the problems in the country as a whole is that many people who support the Bill do so because they think it is about pain.

We could have a Bill about pain, but then we would come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that that is not what the Bill should have been. The Government should have said that they would give a free vote on a government Bill on this subject, rather than slipping it in in a wholly different way.

However, we are faced with what we have, and in that case it does not seem kind to say to people who are under all sorts of pressures and who are particularly vulnerable that this is a choice they should make. If we want kindness, we should be saying to the Government, “Get the Bill withdrawn and introduce a government Bill that is properly thought through where we can have the real debate that the public as a whole want us to have. You can still have a free vote”, but it should never have been put through in this way.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may respond on the pain point, I have spoken to lots of people who are terminally ill and heard their evidence. Again, I recommend that as many people as possible hear them because they have heartwarming stories. For them—not all the time, but a lot of the time—it is because they want to have that choice at the end so they do not have to face that pain. That is a key reason for them. The Bill says that you have to be within six months of the end of your life, but then you have the choice within that. For some people, the thought of that pain, and the experience of that pain, is the real reason why they want an assisted death. My point is that I believe prisoners should have exactly that same right so that they have the possibility to avoid that pain.

[Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 308 and 347 regarding the availability of assisted dying services to people who are homeless.

The intention and the fundamental principle behind the Bill are that terminally ill individuals are able to exercise their autonomy and end their lives on their terms and at a time of their choosing. But, as many noble Lords have articulated during the passage of the Bill, that is a vision of autonomy that simply does not exist for far too many people. We do not live in a society where everyone is equally able to make decisions without being constrained by external influences, whether that is in the form of other people or simply follows from one’s own life circumstances. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has highlighted the ways in which society does not always afford even her that degree of autonomy despite her extraordinary career and achievements, from physical obstacles that prevent her having equal access to the public transport that is supposed to serve everyone to people who are not disabled telling her that, were they in her position, they would not keep on going.

Not only are people who are homeless by definition cut off from and invisible to key public services, including healthcare, but they often have complex further needs, such as abusive relationships, poor mental health and addiction. How can we imagine that they will not be at risk of being offered an assisted death simply because those needs are judged too hard to meet, or because someone else has decided that their lives are not worth while? We have seen that happen in jurisdictions such as Canada, where the parameters for an assisted death were widened soon after the law was passed, and we duly saw examples of individuals dying by Medicaid explicitly because they were affected by isolation and homelessness. Yes, the Bill differs from the law in Canada in that it requires a terminal diagnosis, but as soon as that threshold is crossed there is nothing in the Bill that would stop a person accessing an assisted death for reasons that were nothing to do with their illness but simply because they had been too worn down for too long by problems that could have been solved with the right care, attention and funding.

This year, Crisis and Pathway reported that almost 80% of health professionals say that homeless people are discharged from hospital with unmet health needs, and 92% of homeless people find mental health care difficult to access. The average age of death is 46 for a homeless man and just 42 for a homeless woman. Their circumstances deprive them of autonomy because they remove meaningful choice. That applies just as much to the gravely ill person sleeping rough or isolated in temporary accommodation as it does to the one who cannot afford proper palliative care at the end of life.

While I have other reservations about the Bill and the pressuring effect it will have on disadvantaged groups, I am especially concerned that we are looking to introduce it at a time when the cost of living means that homelessness has reached critical levels throughout the UK. Only yesterday, the Government published a national plan to end homelessness, and I commend my colleagues in the Government on that, but there are some shocking statistics in that plan about the numbers who are homeless. It paints a picture of utter despair and isolation for some of the most vulnerable in our society. It is wholly impossible to justify leaving out safeguards that would prevent homeless people being coerced into an assisted death, whether through abuse, absence of choice or simply their despair. I urge noble Lords to support Amendments 308 and 347.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I have found this debate to be very helpful, because we all of course want the safest processes possible in all of this. It is clear that we are all reaching to try and find a way that we think will work. To a certain degree, it is all down to whether the best way to do this is through a multidisciplinary panel or a judge-led court process.

The example that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, gave in terms of life support is quite illustrative, because life support decisions are made by medical professionals. In the vast majority of those cases, they then go through on the basis of that professional advice. It is only in the edge cases or serious cases where there is an appeal process that the family can take to court.

On this proposed process, there is a multidisciplinary panel, very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which includes a psychiatrist, social worker and judge—the professionals in this particular area—who will be very well placed to reach a decision in a similar way to life support decisions for which, in the vast majority of cases, everyone is happy that it is the safest and right decision. There is also the oversight role of the commissioner, who is of course a judge in this process and, rather like the example of the life support case, has the ability to oversee and review that case where there are serious concerns. The life support example is a very good one here, given that we are trying to adopt a similar process in the multidisciplinary panel with the oversight of the commissioner.

On a way forward, it may be for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to discuss how those cases can interact. Where the multidisciplinary panel might need oversight, the concern is how that can be triggered and how that can be worked out in terms of the commissioners. We have a framework there that, like the life support example, can get the best of both worlds. That could prove a constructive way forward.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I will take the advice of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and now get rid of what I was going to say, because the noble Lord, Lord Markham, has said most of it. I now have only three points to add, so I thank the noble Lord for that.

First, the big discussion is on whether it should be a court or panel. The reasons for the panel have been put, so I do not need to repeat that. The only thing I would say is that when this was discussed in the Commons, it was not about the capacity of the courts that made them make the change to a panel but about the advice they got that this would be a much better, holistic and patient-focused way of doing it. In fact, making sure that that bit was added was very much welcomed by the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers.

Secondly, the mention just now of legal aid says it all. Surely, we do not want this to be an adversarial process. It should not be argued in front of a court that way. I want to be very brief, because I am taking the advice of the noble and learned Baroness to be very brief, but we want this to be a conscientious decision and not one that is adversarial, which is why I think the panel would be so much better.

Lastly, this is not a life-or-death issue, because these people are dying. We are discussing only when they die, not whether. That is different from deciding that a baby will die who was not going to die anyway, or even someone in a permanent vegetative state. That is why I really do not agree that it is right to use the word “suicide”, rather than “assisted dying”. People are dying, and this is the issue of when they die and not whether.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the point about lasting power of attorney that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has made and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has reinforced, but I also want to look at it another way round. The fear—which is a very justified fear—is that the power could be abused in the case of assisted suicide, but I also think it is important to look at it from the point of view of the person who has given the lasting power of attorney.

Many noble Lords will have lasting power of attorney—I declare that I do myself—and it carries certain responsibilities. One thing that surprised me when I first got lasting power of attorney was that I might be asked to take a view about whether a “do not resuscitate” order should be given. Of course, that was an intimidating responsibility and something that I needed to establish with the person concerned. I understand why it had to happen, but it was pretty difficult and anxiety-inducing. Imagine if we who possess lasting power of attorney had some responsibility to take a view about whether the person over whom we have those powers should have an assisted suicide. It would seem a very unpleasant responsibility, and therefore it is important that both sides—the person who transfers the powers and the person who receives those transferred powers—should be quite excluded from this.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Every point that has been raised is valid, and I am sure that, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gets up to respond, he will acknowledge those points as well. However, I think the question in each case is whether we want it to be a black or white assessment of whether that should apply.

Financial support is a very good example of where in some cases that may be very relevant and in others it may not. I remember that my mother, unfortunately, was given a matter of weeks to live and was helped on her way when there was a matter of days left. The financial circumstances just did not even come into it at that point, so having a black and white assessment saying, “Oh, she didn’t seek financial support or didn’t have it”, was not even a relevant criterion. On the question about mental health and whether someone has had any disorders, that is very relevant if it was a recent episode but I think we would probably say it was not very relevant at all if it was 50 or 60 years ago.

Therefore, in all these circumstances, are we not seeing cases where it depends on the circumstances? To me, it is a question of whether we trust the panel, and whether we trust the doctors assessing the case, who are looking into all the criteria and will have the opportunity to call for any evidence they need on it, to be able to do that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that one of the problems is that the organisations of these very people whom we are trusting have said that they want clarification on these things. The issue, therefore, is that we should be giving them that clarification that they want, and then we can trust them. They say they do not want to be trusted unless they have that clarification. That is the only point we are trying to make.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, it is about whether you put that financial support clarification in black and white and say, “This must be something that someone’s done”, where it might not even be relevant to the circumstances, or where the—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The fact that somebody has a terminal diagnosis of six months automatically triggers SR1, so that part of the amendment is superfluous. There are things in amendments that automatically happen but which they would put in the Bill, but they do not need to be put in the Bill by the amendments because they already happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This whole debate shows that these are not black and white matters. Although they are all relevant criteria, which absolutely should be in the assessment—my understanding from the Bill is that they are in the assessment—it should not be put down as some sort of tick-box exercise that says you are either eligible or not, according to them.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

May I just check: is the noble Lord, Lord Markham, really saying that he wants it to be open so that a lasting power of attorney could be used by somebody else to seek the death of the person on behalf of whom they have that power? Does he want that to be available? I do not think he does, and it appeared that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, did not either. If we do not think it should be, we should rule it out.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

What I am trying to come back to—a point that my noble friend Lord Deben was making—is that there are some valid criteria here. I am trying to build some flexibility into this system. Lots of eligibility criteria are being set out here, in all these different amendments.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I believe that the noble Lord answered that intervention, so this is separate.

The noble Lord served on the Select Committee with other noble Lords. We heard clear evidence from Alex Ruck Keene and others that this is not about flexibility: you need to know which piece of legislation you, as a clinician, are applying. Are you acting under your general duty on suicide prevention or, as in the example I gave, are you acting under either the Mental Health Act or TIA? There is no flexibility. Clinicians are asking for clarity on this; with all due respect, that needs to be in the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

It is about whether we are trying to build everything in; I will try to make my point now that I have taken a few interventions.

The point I am trying to make in all this is that these groups of amendments set out lots of different eligibility criteria. Some are about nursing homes and whether you are a resident. Some are about whether you have ever had a mental health assessment. Some are about financial support. Everyone in every circumstance says that, in some people’s circumstances, these criteria are very relevant and should be the criteria set down for doctors. It should be very clear that, under those criteria, the doctors and the panel should be taking these things into account. The criteria might be totally irrelevant for other cases, too.

We are trying to give the doctors and panels the opportunity to make these decisions without being tied up in knots over black and white exercises around whether the law is applicable to someone according to this or that, so that we can have a workable set of rules that takes into account all noble Lords’ concerns to make it as safe as possible—quite rightly—and creates a process whereby, ultimately, it is the experts, doctors and social workers on panels who are best placed to make a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome the return of my noble friend Lady Campbell—the most extraordinary person and advocate for disabled people and so many more in our societies. I just remind the Committee that, in all these discussions about burdens and people who have had a stroke— I am terribly sorry that the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had a stroke—we are talking about six months for somebody who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. We should reflect on and remember that in all our deliberations on the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I may just build on that, because the noble Baroness is quite right that it is six months. This is absolutely about choice, and behind that choice is the person’s motivation. Of course pain is a very valid reason, but it is not the only reason as, again, research has shown. For lots of people it is about the loss of dignity. For others, it is about the loss of control of bodily functions or about losing autonomy. It is about being less able to engage in enjoyable activities.

Yes, sometimes it is about feeling a burden, inadequate pain controls or financial concerns as well, but that shows that it is a complex area. On average, people gave three or four different reasons or motivations. It is not for us to assess what a valid or invalid motivation is. We should be considering whether there is any coercion in those decisions but, beyond that, it is absolutely about choice. Recognising choice is about people having their own motivations behind this. It is not for us to decide whether they are valid or not.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, this is an important and moving debate. It is an honour to speak in it and to follow some of the previous contributions. These amendments highlight the fact that eligibility is not the same as motivation. I agree with almost everything that has been said before me; I will not delay the Committee by repeating those points.

There are two things that I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention. First, I remind noble Lords of points made by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester. The Bill, if passed, will apply to those in our prison system, for whom there will be very particular motivations, which we need to make sure can be fairly applied to them.

Secondly, if the Bill is passed, we have a duty of care to those who survive the deceased. Some of us have had the privilege of sitting with many bereaved families. In my experience, there is almost not a death which does not leave a huge wake of pain behind it. Indeed, the one or two in which that has not been the case have been some of the most distressing pastoral situations I have ever dealt with. Where there has been an element of choice to that dying, the “what ifs”, the “if onlys” and the longings are deeply profound scars, which live with people for a long time. In passing the Bill—if we do pass it—we have a responsibility of care, not just to those considering their own death but to those left behind, those who are caring and those who long to do everything they can to be with those they love deeply, and to support and enable them to carry on living and to do so well.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments, and he is right: we had an extensive exchange on this subject on a previous Friday, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if my interpretation of what one of her ministerial colleagues said was incorrect, but it was very clear when I asked whether the Government were going to fund anything in the Bill. The Minister confirmed that, if Parliament were to choose to pass the Bill, the Government would indeed fund it and make sure it could be delivered. But when I asked the Minister whether that funding would be extra funding from the Treasury or would be taken from other parts of the public services—I think this was in the context of the extensive debate we had on the proposals on the court system by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—it was made very clear that that assurance was not given. I am afraid that the only conclusion I could come to, which was not challenged by the Minister—if she thinks I have got it wrong, she is welcome to intervene—was that the money would come from other parts of the public services.

I have to say for myself that, if this assisted dying navigator proposal were to be funded by taking money away from NHS services to pay for it, I think people would find that quite extraordinary. I personally would find it indefensible that we were, again, taking money away from services to help people live to pay for a service to help them die. That would show a very odd sense of priorities. When the Minister responds, because she is the only one who can answer this question, not the sponsor of the Bill, because he is not, as far as I am aware, responsible for His Majesty’s Treasury, I hope she can tell us—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I think I heard my noble friend say that NHS resources should be used just to help people live. Of course, we would all agree that is a very important thing, but surely palliative care is all about helping people to die comfortably, which I think we all believe in as well. Given that, maybe my noble friend would agree that helping people to die comfortably, such as through palliative care, is a very good way to spend NHS resources as well.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I agree that palliative care is a very good way to spend NHS resources, to help people live the rest of their lives in as comfortable a way as possible; it is not about accelerating their demise. That is a fundamentally different thing. In the exchange towards the end of our debate last week between my noble friend Lord Markham and my noble friend Lady Finlay about what palliative care is and is not, we had that, and I think it came out very clearly.

I do not wish to overstep the time available to me. The purpose of the amendments is to challenge some of the premises of the proposal set out by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I hope I have set out some of the concerns that we have, and I hope that the House will support the amendments I have supported on the Order Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I will not give way. I will answer at the end. I have almost finished what I have to say.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a true argument. There are many examples. In my practice, probably about 60% of the time when people came to my clinic, and it was always true even when IVF was successful, I refused them treatment. I refused to treat them, not because there was no money or we could not afford to treat them, but because I thought the treatment would increase their distress because it was so unlikely to be helpful.

When that happens to people, it is a kind of death within them, but they have the great advantage that they can mourn that death and overcome it by doing other things. Unfortunately, in this situation, when people are dying in the way they are, often horribly, there is something that we need to try to do purely out of compassion.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

To build on that, I will put the financial numbers into context. The impact assessment has it down as £28 million; I believe that is 0.000175% of the NHS budget. It is right and proper that we decide how NHS resources are spent and in which direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. We make those decisions all the time—for example, whether we put more funding into cancer or other services. It is entirely appropriate.

One of the key phrases was, “It is our NHS”, and what do we know about assisted dying? That 70% of the public support it. Given that, surely it is entirely right that resources are spent in that way.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

The point that is being missed was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and it is the problem with what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was saying. Can the noble Lord respond to it? We are talking about what the aim of this is, but it is not a health aim. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke of better treatment for cancer and in vitro fertilisation. Are the noble Lords arguing that death is a health aim?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I apologise to my noble friend. The guidance of the House is that you cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Let me answer that, then I will be perfectly happy to be intervened on—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt. If I am correct, the noble Lord can speak again, but he cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I believe I am answering the question. Once I have finished answering, the noble Lord can intervene on me and say what he would like to say. If he is willing to wait a few moments, that would be the appropriate point.

We spoke earlier about how palliative care is a way for people to choose to ease the way they die. I would say that assisted dying is also giving people the choice to die in a way they want to. In birth services, people have a birth plan. I remember going through this recently and there was a midwife who played a role very similar to that of a personal navigator, helping us talk about what sort of birth plan we wanted: whether we wanted a home birth and what we wanted to do about pain relief. It was very similar to many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, was talking about. The fundamental point here—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is free to intervene at any point now I have answered that—is that it is giving people choice and autonomy. I believe that choice in the way you wish to die and when you want to die, if it is certain that your diagnosis is that you will die within six months, is a fundamental choice and a health choice.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

Part of the noble Lord’s argument is based on assisted suicide being so popular with the general public that 70% of people want it. If that is so, perhaps he can help me to understand why none of the parties in this House put in their manifesto that they want assisted dying?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Given that I did not write any of the manifestos, I am not sure I can say. If I was writing them, it is something that I would probably put in. It is something that everyone agrees is one of personal choice, like many other issues, and of course that is why everyone has a free vote in this matter. It is undeniable that there is overwhelming public support for this and, as it is “our NHS”, it is entirely fitting that if it is the decision that money is spent in this way, it should be directed towards this service.

The question becomes one of what I believe the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick, are trying to do in their amendments, which is to take what we know is a complex system and make it as easy to navigate as possible. We know that it is a time of great distress. In many cases you have just been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and sometimes you will be told straightaway that you have only a few months to live, so automatically you are within the six months and it is something you want to move on quickly. It is entirely right and proper that you want to ensure that it then happens as efficiently as possible. That does not mean you do not want other services to happen as efficiently as possible in the NHS. It is not a binary choice between one and the other.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

The noble Lord has repeated on several occasions the fact of overwhelming public support for this. Does he agree that there are a lot of other areas in which opinion polling may show public support, but the job of this House is to ensure that the support is buttressed by legislation that is deliverable, is compassionate, respects the rights of all and is applicable across a range of different situations?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, absolutely. That is what these debates are all about: trying to find an approach that makes assisted dying tight and safe, safeguarding all sorts of vulnerable groups, but also navigable. I know that is what the sponsors of the Bill are trying to do and what the noble Lords are trying to do in this amendment. I commend the amendment for that reason. I do not think they are trying to be prescriptive. They are trying to start a conversation with the Bill’s sponsors that will go on between now and Report, which is an entirely constructive way to do it.

On how the service is best provided, I was on the Select Committee and it is one for the NHS to commission in the best way. Commissioning can use the NHS or voluntary services, and I think we would all agree that, in the hospice sector, voluntary services provide very well. It is wrong at this stage for us to try to be prescriptive in terms of a one-size-fits-all NHS provision. The main thing on these amendments is trying to get a constructive approach, which I am sure the Bill’s sponsors will pick up, to how we make this as simple as possible to use for those who are in the most distressing period of their lives, when they have less than six months to live and they want to die in a method of their choice and in the most comfortable way possible.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, of the 43 amendments in this group, 35 are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Birt. They propose a framework for a completely new process outside that already created by this defective Bill, requiring a service of both advice and assistance. This includes the provision of assisted suicide every day of the year, including public holidays, Christmas, Easter et cetera, from 8 am to 6 pm, unless the doctor is in the house where the drug is being administered, in which case he has to stay. As has been said, there is no impact assessment on the cost of this new service and it is a relevant matter. Concerns must arise, given the advice of the Health Secretary that there is already a lack of access to high-quality end-of-life care and that there are tightened finances within the NHS, which could add to the pressure faced by dying patients.

These amendments require a new service that must be part of the NHS. We have heard arguments against that, and I support them. They impose deadlines and create processes for enforcing those deadlines, which will provide assisted death at a time when the person who is terminally ill will, in many cases, struggle to access palliative care; they may even never be able to do so.

The assisted suicide service would take priority. There is no process, as has been said, for a personal guide to get palliative care or the necessary social care. Would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, be willing to accept amendments that would require palliative care treatment options to be available and accessible within similar structures and timeframes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, for answering much of what would have been in my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. In my 15 years in your Lordships’ House, it has been the usual practice to give way, but I recognise that noble Lords have the prerogative not to accept an intervention. But I find it surprising—and I have never known it before—that the noble Lord is now no longer in his place. That is not in accordance with the advice that the Chief Whip gave this morning that we should treat each other in this House with respect.

The only additional point I make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who clearly did amazing work on the creation of life—it was on the television as I grew up—and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, who talked about the pathway that midwives give for the safe delivery of that created life, is that it is entirely different to talk about a situation where the state pays for and facilitates lethal drugs to enable a citizen to end their own life.

Looking at the amendment—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may respond to the noble Baroness’s first point, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, who is not in his place either, mentioned that they had appointments that they needed to go to. I believe that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is not here now.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Well, I hope that he will write to me personally about this.

In relation to the evidence on which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is basing his argument, I was surprised that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the Australian non-comparable. Paragraph 8.4 of the impact assessment, on the delivery model, states that

“in most jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal it is provided through the healthcare system”,

so looking for international comparators is an unusual approach. The 30 jurisdictions that we keep hearing about include the Isle of Man, Tuscany in Italy, and only 13 of the 50 United States. This is not a wave that we must get with, as many progressive politicians like to say it is. Denmark considered this in 2024, and 16 out of 17 members of the Danish Council of Ethics voted against introducing assisted dying into their jurisdiction. Only yesterday, the French Senate decided not to go forward with legislation. This is in no way a progressive train that we need to get on.

My second point relates to the speed of these decisions for families. We know that the Bill is philosophically based on individual autonomy, which is anathema to many communities. For families to know that this was done within 18 days will only compound what we believe will be complicated grief. I am particularly concerned about how the speed of service will fit in with the increasing uncertainty of diagnoses for 18 to 25 year-olds because of the various positive effects of treatments for them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has admitted that there are, sadly, deficiencies in Clause 43 in relation to advertising. I do not think I am a cynic, but I am sorry to say that I can see a competition: “Can I get to 18 years and 18 days and be the first young person to meet that milestone?” We do not want a culture of speed in this process, limiting reflection.

Finally, maybe I am the only noble Lord sitting here without the benefits of the pre-legislative scrutiny of a consultation White Paper but, with many amendments, I am wondering how this service will fit together with a panel—or will it be a judge, or a judge with a couple of other members? That is the deficiency: in Committee, we are still trying to put right the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I do not know whether that is possible.

--- Later in debate ---

We have heard remarks today about people dying horribly and we have heard about research moving progress forward. So I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: why is there no requirement in this Bill for everything undertaken to be subject to rigorous evaluation and research, with the data available to be looked at in detail?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

In the spirit of helpfulness on public opinion and whether people understand the question, there are numerous surveys on this. A very clear one has the wording “Do you think doctors should be allowed to end the life of a terminally ill patient at their request?”, which was supported by 75% of 18 to 34 year-olds, 80% of 35 to 64 year-olds and 78% of those aged 65-plus. I do not think you could get a question clearer than that, or a level of public support greater than that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but I think we need to stay focused on the amendments in this group and not get diverted. That is what I am trying to do.

In terms of palliative care provision, I am extremely worried that the amendments put down to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, had to be limited because palliative care is repeatedly being deemed out of scope of the Bill. That is a major problem. We hear about bad deaths, but we know that actually, if clinicians act with urgency and have a 24 or 48-hour limit before they call for specialist palliative care intervention—so there is rapid intervention, with highly specialised knowledge—all of the outcome measures show an improvement, using things such as the IPOS scale and so on. Family reported outcomes can also improve. To view bad deaths as something that we should just leave and tolerate, and to say the only solution is the proposal in these amendments, does not recognise the reality of the services that are available already.

In introducing his amendments, the noble Lord quoted extensively from Australia and painted it as everything being perfect. I would like to briefly counter that by quoting the honourable Robert Clark, who was Victoria’s Attorney-General from 2010 to 2014. He has written about the Australian experience of assisted suicide. He describes a change in “attitudes”, with the “ethos” of the medical profession moving away from the practitioner’s primary duty to solve the problems the patient has, and a grave risk that this will lead over time to doctors forming views that a patient ought to be opting for assisted suicide and becoming inclined to regard that patients should go down that road.

He also highlights that there are things going wrong. I will not detain the Committee because of time, but I think there are alternatives. He points out that there are some doctors who, when they have resisted going along with a request for an assisted death, have found their whole careers eventually becoming somewhat blighted. Although there is a clause in the Bill which tries to avoid that, there is concern that that clause is incomplete. So, when we quote international evidence, we also have to be quite balanced in it.

The proposal in the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, do us a favour, because they demonstrate that this cannot be part of the NHS as it is at the moment. It begins to move us towards viewing some kind of proposal like this being completely outside NHS services but not planted in the NHS. Then, of course, the funding question arises. If funding erodes palliative care funding, which has happened in other places, we really have a problem, because recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee showed that, if you have specialist palliative care in place and available, as it ought to be, the savings to the country would be about £800 million a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

In terms of, hopefully, being helpful, it is in the impact assessment. It is £28 million or, as I said, 0.000175% of the NHS budget.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am perfectly happy to accept the intervention, but I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, did not accept any intervention, as he might have found it difficult to answer the questions that we are asking.

The point that I am making is very simple and it remains: we have to make a decision always among priorities. The problem with this decision—and it is why this should have been a government Bill and not a Private Member’s Bill—is that, as a Private Member’s Bill, it is a single-issue Bill. It is promoted by people who want this to be decided irrespective of its effect on everything else that happens. That it is not acceptable, it seems to me, for the Government. The purpose of my comment is that it is not about how much the proponents think it will cost; it is about the effect of this over the rest of the National Health Service. If the Bill is passed, where is it going to fit? The Government really cannot get up and say that we are entirely independent. They have to tell us, if this Bill is passed, where they see it sitting, because the proponents of the Bill have not expressed this. What is the real cost; that is, not the sum of money, but the effect of it on the rest of the service provided? They also have to tell us how it will impact the essential demands that the public have for so many other things.

We can argue about what the public think about this Bill—I am pretty sure that they think about this Bill rather differently from what it actually is—but we have to recognise that the public also have very strong views about what money should be spent in other areas. The Government have to tell us, from their point of view, how much it will cost, what the effect will be on the other services provided, where it will sit if it is passed, and how they will overcome the problem that many of those who may be asked to support it have said that they will not. Those are things for the Government to tell us and, so far, they have been unable to put answers to any of those questions, which is the second reason—the other is the point that the noble Lord has just made about amendments—why we have constantly to go on arguing, in detail, about this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this may be a convenient point to speak to two amendments in my name in this group. My Amendment 320ZA complements Amendments 39B and 39C, which I briefly touched on in the last debate, by making explicit that non-medical motivations cannot drive an assisted death. It draws a distinct line between medical suffering and social abandonment. International evidence shows that non-medical motivations dominate assisted dying requests. In Oregon, “being a burden” is cited by nearly half of all applicants. Parliament must decide whether it is comfortable legislating for that. This amendment ensures that England and Wales do not drift into a model in which existential distress, loneliness or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, “sheer misery” or lack of care become accepted reasons for state-facilitated death. It also responds directly to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which warned that subtle pressures from lack of services can drive people prematurely towards death. This amendment ensures those pressures are addressed, not endorsed.

My other Amendment 332AA operationalises the “ask why” concession. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said he is “attracted” to requiring clinicians to ask why a person wants to die but unless the answer has consequences, the question is meaningless. This amendment ensures that when the answer is, “I am a burden” or “I cannot afford care,” or “I am alone”, “I am fed up” or “I am miserable”, the process pauses and support is provided. It reflects the evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Geriatrics Society, both of which emphasise the need for holistic assessment. It ensures that treatable depression, unmet care needs or social pressures are addressed before an irreversible decision is made. This is safeguarding, not obstruction. It ensures that assisted death is not used as a substitute for care.

My amendments matter because, first, they protect genuine choice. A decision driven by lack of heating, housing or social care is not the same as one driven by intractable physical decline. These amendments stop the law becoming a backdoor response to social failure.

Secondly, I believe they are a practical safeguard, not a veto. This is not a blanket ban; it is a procedural pause to address fixable problems—social support, benefits, palliative referrals—before a final medical judgment is made. Thirdly, clinicians need clarity. Doctors must be able to ask why and act on the answer. These amendments would give them a clear statutory duty to do so, reducing moral and legal ambiguity. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, truly believes this Bill is about free, informed choice, will he oppose leaving people to die because the state failed to provide basic support or will he back these modest, targeted safeguards?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The main point here is that, by definition, you are eligible for assisted death only if you have been diagnosed to be within six months of the end of your life through a terminal illness. That is the reason that you are applying for an assisted death. That is motivation for doing it, because clearly it is not like those people want to die. We have talked to many people, and I am sure a lot of people have, and they desperately do not want to be in this situation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but even the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, has been very clear in saying that the six-month prognosis is a trigger that gives you admission to the process, if you like, but it does not have to be the reason, so it is not by definition the case that if you have the prognosis, that must be the reason. They are two quite different concepts.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I said, these are not people who want to die; they are people who absolutely want to live. The only reason they are entering into this process, and the only reason they would be eligible—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I completely sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that these people do not want to die; they want to live. Would he then agree with some of the amendments that I tabled last week and spoke on? If, for example, they want to die and are then diagnosed with a terminal illness, that would be relevant to not allowing them into the process; that is, they want to die, and then the trigger of terminal illness allows the state-sanctioned administration of lethal drugs so that they can commit suicide, which is why people have raised problems about suicide ideation and mental illness. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will back some of the amendments on safeguarding that I tabled.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Baroness is talking about a slightly different circumstance where there are prior reasons, which could be mental health or other reasons, and why that could be a cause. What we are talking about here is basically the criterion on which you can first be assessed for assisted dying, which is, of course, that you have been diagnosed in the first place. To the point that, of course, people might then live longer, my experience is that they are delighted by that. Just because they have been assessed as being able to have assisted dying does not mean that they will take the medication. Again, evidence shows strongly that they will take the medication only right near the end when the pain, the loss of dignity or whatever the reason is becomes unbearable. My experience is that those people would be delighted if it was a misdiagnosis, and if they are fortunate enough to be living 30 years later, as per some of these examples, that would be fantastic. Of course, they will not have taken the medication. The point is that they take it only right at the end where there is no other choice, so to speak.

Within that, accepting that these are the people we are talking about, of course there are all sorts of different motivations why, when they are unfortunately at the point where they are looking at such a death, they might want to go ahead with it. Research shows that there are multiple reasons; it is impossible to put it down to just one. Loss of autonomy, less ability to engage in enjoyable activities, loss of dignity, loss of control of bodily functions, burden, inadequate pain relief or finances are all part of the reasons. They are all part of the research, and, on average, you will find that there are three or four reasons to do it.

So it is quite wrong to say, “No, we’ll only allow you to go ahead with this if you only have that single motivation”. As I said before, they would rather not be there in the first place, but given that they are in that unfortunate circumstance, surely they should be allowed the choice of why they wish to die.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I put my name to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and I will not repeat what she said. She opened the debate on these amendments with superb clarity, characteristic of her contributions to your Lordships’ House.

I have been shocked by what I have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I ask him just to reflect on two contributions made earlier in this afternoon’s session by my noble friend Lord Mawson, who, from his own experience, described what happens in poorer neighbourhoods, which he has experienced very directly, in which people face different problems and are more likely to want to die for reasons to which their terminal illness is just an ancillary point.

I have been involved in these debates since I came into your Lordships’ House at least. I was on the Joffe Bill Committee with my noble friend Lady Finlay. In the Committee on that Bill, in all the other Bills I can remember since, and particularly in all the case law that I have followed over the years—mostly very celebrated cases—the purpose of asking for assisted suicide has been to alleviate terrible suffering. That has been the sole purpose for demanding a change in the law: to alleviate terrible suffering. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord wishes to achieve anything different from that. It is just that it does not say in the Bill that the purpose of having assisted suicide should be to alleviate terrible suffering.

Of course, there may be other issues at work in that person’s mind when they ask for assisted suicide—we cannot read every synapse in their brain—but we are here to legislate to save people from terrible suffering, if the Bill is to pass. I am very concerned that the Bill should be amended so that the capability to have assisted suicide does not arise as an opportunity to commit suicide. The reason to commit suicide, the absolute cause, should be the intolerable suffering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has prompted me to return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Cass, because the chance of being right about six months has been estimated at around 48%. It is just plucked out of the air. It depends on the individual, how their body responds to whatever disease it is and lots of other factors. I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said that these are people who want to live. They should be having access to specialist palliative care to maintain their quality of life as high as possible, yet we have huge gaps in this country.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was making the point that those people—I am looking at some in that category in this very Room, I believe—want to live for the rest of their natural life for as long as possible. That is what they really want. They desperately do not want to be diagnosed with a terminal illness.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I have looked after thousands and thousands of patients, and I have to say that I have never come across someone who said they wanted to be terminally ill and to have their metastases or whatever. No, people want to live well but accept that death is a natural part of life. That is quite different from talking about deciding that someone is going to be given lethal drugs to foreshorten their life.

The benefit of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, is that they fit fair and square with the Title of the Bill, which is about terminally ill adults, and make it clear that this is about terminal illness and cannot be masqueraded as anything else. Yes, there will be multiple factors, because of course someone who is already seriously ill but is content with their life will not seek assisted suicide—that goes without saying. However, we also need to be clear about differentiating medication, which is where we give a substance with the intention of achieving an improvement to the person’s well-being, from the large cocktail of lethal drugs that we debated previously, and I am not going to revisit that.

I have a concern when we label all these patients as having pain and suffering. Evidence from other countries is that pain and suffering are not the prime reason why people are going for this. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, nodding, and I remember well from the Select Committee that we were on that we heard repeatedly that there were multiple existential factors that made someone’s life have so little meaning and worth that they felt they wanted to go for assisted suicide. However, we have to put some boundaries around it, because literally thousands of people in this country feel exactly that—that their lives are of no worth—and they feel suicidal. As Professor Louis Appleby, the lead suicide prevention adviser to the Government, has said,

“I’m worried once you say some suicides are acceptable, some self-inflicted deaths are understandable and we actually provide the means to facilitate the self-inflicted death. That seems to me to be so far removed from what we currently do and from the principle that’s always guided us on despairing individuals, that it’s an enormous change with far-reaching implications”.

The amendments would provide a ring fence and some safety barriers. Sadly, there are literally thousands of people in society who are suicidal. We heard a lot about that in relation to young people and the algorithms on their phones that they get into with social media and so on. There are an awful lot of people who are profoundly depressed and a lot of people in poverty, and when they become ill that may take them down one further notch, and there are a lot of people who just feel unloved. We have to make sure that the Bill sticks to what it claims to do, which is to be about terminal illness.