Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Bishop of Southwark

Committee stage
Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is meant to be a debate. I have taken a lot of opposition points. Let me finish. The worry is that civil liability protections do not cover where a duty is owed to the patients. How can doctors who do not wish to offer or discuss assisted dying be sure that they do not face liability for failing to comply with their alleged duty to raise treatments?

When I have raised such concerns with supporters of the Bill, I have been reassured that now that we have passed the workers’ rights Bill—there are parts in this Bill, too—there will be lots of protections. They point out that, if there are any problems, staff can always use employment tribunals if they feel that they have been unfairly treated, although, as I say, trade unions are quite keen on an opt-in. But as those of us who sat through the hours and hours of deliberations on the Employment Rights Bill will know, employment tribunals have huge, years-long waiting lists. Also, such tribunals put the burden on the employee to demonstrate and prove detrimental treatment, which seems completely unfair.

It seems pertinent to note, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that as the remedy in employment cases is damages not rehiring, this could lead to driving health and care workers out of the understaffed healthcare sector—not a good result. To finish, as the noble and learned Lord is a member of the party that rightly boasts of its commitment to workplace fairness and workers’ rights, I am simply hoping that he will be sympathetic to those amendments that put workers’ rights—guaranteed—centre stage in relation to assisted dying. It is not too much to ask.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because I added my signature to Amendment 673 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, as did the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

Allowing for some reticence on the necessity of this amendment, I just wish to make two points. First, the Bill allows an opt-out for registered medical practitioners: a health professional, a social care professional or a registered pharmacist. Administrative tasks are specifically not excluded. The Bill defines health professionals as medical practitioners, pharmacists and nurses, but it does not define care professionals. This is a lacuna, which will cause problems should this or any Bill on this basis pass your Lordships’ House.

Secondly, matters of acute conscience are not restricted to the immediate preparation of a lethal dosage or the medical oversight of the procedure. There will be, for reasons of practicality, not least of cost, pressure on all sorts of ancillary staff, as anyone in a health and care setting will attest. If they are co-opted, either directly or indirectly, into what becomes the final procedure, when the conscience of such an ancillary participant tells them that they should have nothing to do with such a procedure, is it right that they should face sanction or inhibition of their careers, or even dismissal? I suggest not and I hope that the House will support this amendment.