Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Irony noted. Anyway, it is—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Baroness is making a point that contradicts the words of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has explained. Clause 31(1) says in unambiguous terms:

“No person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act”.


We all agree with that. We all agree that employees, whatever their status, should be fully protected.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Royal colleges and trade unions want better guarantees. When we discussed the Employment Rights Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

However, Clause 4 requires the Prime Minister to appoint a voluntary assisted dying commissioner and many of the clauses give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. Does that mean that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—presumably the Secretary of State for Health but possibly also the Justice Secretary and junior Ministers—would be expected to engage with this legislation if passed and that there would not be a conscience clause for politicians and civil servants? That would seem to go against the norms of saying that there can be conscience clauses. It would be unfortunate—I say this as a practising Catholic—if Catholics and others of faith or people for whatever reason—it may not be religious—felt that they could not support an assisted dying service.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I just want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on the importance of conscientious objection. The strength of Clause 31 and Schedule 3 is that they are not confined to those who can show that they have a conscientious objection to assisted suicide. Any doctor or any other person who does not wish to assist has a legal right not to do so, for any reason—indeed, they do not have to give a reason. That is the broadest possible protection. Let us not forget that it is broader than the protection which Parliament included in the Abortion Act 1967. Under Section 4 of that Act, the doctor or other person who does not wish to participate must not only have a “conscientious objection”; they must be able to prove that they have a conscientious objection if there is any issue about it. The Bill from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, includes the broadest possible protection.

My reaction to many of these amendments is the reaction I have had over 13 days to the amendments to this Bill which we have debated. Whatever their intention—I make no allegations about intention—their effect will inevitably be, unnecessarily, to impede the ability of persons who are dying to receive the assistance that they so desperately want.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the clarity, but I draw attention to the fact that this is a position that could have been put, and still could be put, in a meeting with the various royal colleges to assure them that the Bill does what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, say it does. We are faced with a situation where the practitioners are not satisfied and do not have the confidence that the noble Lord alludes to: that the Bill will give them the protection that they want.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Of course, some practitioners do not have confidence. We are not going to get to any conclusion on the Bill that will enable Parliament to implement the view of the vast majority of people in this country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, can we get to the Front Benches?