Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Noble Lords are repeatedly intervening on the different points.

As for the numbers, the estimates, based on the evidence from other countries, suggest that the estimates in the impact assessment are very low, and that the demand for assisted suicide would be much higher, so it would come into the purview of a large number of clinicians; hence the need for specialisation.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, with some diffidence, I first put on the record that the Bill is abundantly clear that it is an opt-in system. Clause 31, “No obligation to provide assistance etc”, says:

“No person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act … No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to become … the coordinating doctor … or … the independent doctor”—


I will not read out the whole clause. I do not understand why it has been described by noble Lords in the way that the noble Baroness described, about not being able to opt out.

On the point of the register, we have heard over 13 days how important it is to listen to and consult medical practitioners at every stage of the Bill. The proposition in Amendment 189 is that the register should be put in the Bill. It is a privilege to listen to the expertise of our noble friend—as I call her—the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, who has expressed some very profound and intimate reservations. But surely there will be provision in due course for the discussion of how to register people who are willing to opt in, and to do that with a full consultation of all the medical professions so that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, can be addressed. Surely, as with so much of the debate we are having, this is a matter of implementation. Let us get to the point where we can make a decision in principle, but let us make sure that in implementing it we have it right. That must be done, I think, with the full consultation of all the medical professionals.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 383. I have so far limited my speeches on the Bill to a maximum of two to three minutes but on this one occasion I would like to take more time, because this may be the only opportunity I have to discuss how we can integrate some of the approaches that have been put forward; I refer to my noble friend Lady Hollins’s amendments on multiprofessional assessment up front and her Clause 5 stand part notice, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on parallel care between assisted dying and the continuing care process. I believe that what I have to say would vastly simplify things.

My amendment focuses on what professionals who are opted in to work in an assisted dying service would be expected to do, and how it differs from what is expected of those who are not opted in. Specifically, I will talk about two individuals with completely different roles: a professional who is part of the treating team and so is not opted in, and a professional who is opted in as part of the assisted dying service. I ask your Lordships just to suspend belief and bear with me while I explain.

I believe we are all agreed on a couple of points: first, that palliative care provision is inadequate; and, secondly, that services are often fragmented, with no one professional supporting someone at end of life and helping them access all the help that they need.

Let us walk through the patient journey, which I do not believe we have done in this House so far, and start with the person who has just been given—rightly or wrongly—a six-month prognosis. There are many things they may wish to discuss and seek help with: nursing care, access to financial support, pain management or just someone to explain again what the consultant said about their terminal illness. If they are lucky, they will have an excellent general practice team which can help with all these things. But, sadly, despite the wonderful primary care described by my noble friend Lady Gerada, many do not have such a practice. A friend’s husband died recently without being able to secure a single visit from anyone in his GP practice in the last nine months of his life.