Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

I hope I have said enough to illustrate why it is so crucial that there is a specific legal duty to get this paperwork right. I do not think my two amendments raise huge issues of principle; they would ensure simply that the process for which we legislate one day—though perhaps not—is done properly, and that the risks we have discussed repeatedly over our 10 days of discussion are reduced to a minimum. I hope that the noble and learned Lord might look at the amendments on that basis and consider them helpful.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 144 relates to those tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost, who has made many of the points I was about to make. To add to what my noble friend has said, he used the word “paperwork” all the way through his remarks, and he outlined its importance. The point I would make, over and above what my noble friend has just said, is that the NHS has a notorious reputation with regard to paperwork. How many times have we heard about the loss of patients’ medical records and—as my noble friend just said—that the medical records are inaccurate?

Many hours have been spent in this House talking about the digitisation of NHS paperwork. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to say to the NHS—or whoever takes responsibility for this process—that when people go for consultations, they should be done digitally, by which I mean that we do not use a pen and paper. Doctors’ handwriting is notoriously difficult to read; it must be transcribed and digitised by second parties, so mistakes and errors will happen—that is one of the reasons why there are so many errors in medical records.

I say briefly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that this House should insist that the Bill requires this to be done digitally. When clinicians interview vulnerable people, that should be instantly recorded there and then on a tablet, iPad or computer, which will therefore reduce the number of errors. The paperwork is so important, and this is an opportunity for the NHS to step up to the plate and, of all things, digitise the records for people making the decision to end their life.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 139 simply requires the commissioner to report to Parliament, and in Amendment 913 I have tried to ensure the independence and freedom from bias of the commissioner and staff. The voluntary assisted dying commissioner, as the public figurehead of an assisted death regime, must be free from any whiff of conflict of interest or perceived bias.

Conflicts of interest can be direct, such as the commissioner having shares in a provider of assisted deaths, when increased deaths are profitable. However, as NHS England’s standards of business conduct point out, perceived conflicts of interest can also present problems, and all interests must be declared. NHS England’s policy states:

“Officers should be mindful of any situation where relationships may give rise to a perception that a loyalty, credit, or responsibility is owed to another person or body”.


It goes on to say that

“previous employment with an employer which directly or indirectly provides services or products”

could be seen to be an influential factor.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, has addressed the functions of the commissioner; I will not repeat what he said, but I will add a few points. Appointments to panels must not be biased to those sympathetic to assisted death, and they must also avoid those who have publicly expressed some scepticism. The commissioner is to review appeals, and bias can creep in here. Failure to follow statutory safeguards could be viewed leniently, and we have already heard examples of that from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. Highlighting failures in panels would reflect badly on the commissioner who had appointed them. In reviewing and reporting on the operation, the whole regime could skew reporting, because it is not clear which stakeholder groups will be consulted, or which data will be collected and what will be omitted—again, that could leave room for bias.

The amendment simply embodies the principle set out in the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments that there should be

“no conflicts of interest that would call into question their ability to perform the role”.

Can the Minister confirm that these standards would be adhered to in any appointment? The governance code states that many conflicts of interest could be satisfactorily resolved and mitigated, giving the Prime Minister much discretion. Could a mitigation allow an assisted suicide organisation’s patron to serve as the commissioner? This is not purely hypothetical. In Belgium, the joint head of the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia was one of the leading proponents of the 2002 law there. Since then, it has euthanised more than 100 patients and become something of a celebrity. That reputation has caused controversy. We have already heard about underreporting—