Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my remarks follow on, very usefully, from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She made some points I was going to make, so I will not make them, but I will make some others.

We should consider the interaction between the rather murky world of politics and the role of the commissioner. I would not raise that issue if this role were not entirely, as I understand it, a political gift of the Prime Minister—effectively a patronage office. We surely all know the problems that can create; it has been rather vividly illustrated in recent months. I want to probe what happens if this goes wrong, or rather how we can stop it going wrong in the first place, because there is genuine concern about a lack of accountability and transparency around the appointment process for the commissioner. For that reason, I added my name to Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. He is unable to be here today, but he is spot on to suggest that the appointment should be accompanied by a public statement by the Prime Minister, whoever the Prime Minister is, attesting to the suitability, independence and neutrality of the candidate, so that the Prime Minister is ultimately held to account for this appointment and it is clear why they have made it.

The commissioner has a crucial role, with the power to both run and monitor this service, yet the Bill seems to leave the commissioner’s role open to self-definition. They are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that is it; we are all meant to trust it. I do not want to be cynical, but the question of independence and neutrality is important, because this is a controversial and polarising issue. If we did not think it was, we have only to look at the rather testy atmosphere every Friday in this Chamber, let alone on the airwaves in between. We owe it to the public that they feel that they can trust the process if the Bill is made law.

We have to ask what happens if a partisan figure is chosen—how can that be addressed democratically? What is the process if there is a problem with the conduct of this commissioner? Who is accountable for that? That is one of the reasons I added my name to Amendment 913A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, which seeks ways for anyone with concerns about the conduct of the commissioner to make representations to the Prime Minister. The amendment seeks to probe the process by which the commissioner can be held accountable for their conduct.

That takes me back to neutrality and independence. Let us consider: if we leave this appointment, as the Bill seems to, to the Prime Minister, who is given complete discretion about who to appoint, how will we protect the role from political controversy and being seen as possibly partisan? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will not want to compromise the role in that way, I am sure, so some of these amendments might be helpful to insulate it from any accusation of bias.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness not concerned, as I am, that we are conflating expertise with bias? People think that because somebody is expert, they are independent. It does not necessarily follow. There could be people who are expert but at the same time very biased in their approach to any subject.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think that is self-evidently true in the real world, if I can put it that way.

I note that the present Prime Minister is himself personally not neutral. As we now well know, he promised Esther Rantzen that assisted dying would be made legal, although that was not a promise made to the British electorate or in the manifesto, but it was certainly made in public with much singing and dancing. Would the Prime Minister’s personal views influence whom he chose as a commissioner? Noble Lords might think that is far too cynical and I am being grubby—that is fair enough. However, I want to know if there is anything in the Bill that guards against such grubby behaviour, because if anyone thinks there is no grubby behaviour in politics, they need to get out more. If the commissioner is perceived—

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may intervene again, let me say that this is a post which will happen only if the law has been passed by Parliament. I am not aware—but perhaps the noble Baroness can help me—if there is any other public appointment process which says that someone cannot be in favour of the law that they will be in charge of implementing. Is the noble Baroness aware of any others for which that is the case, or is she saying that this should be the only example in which someone cannot be in favour of the law of the land and the job that they have been appointed to do?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I should clarify that I do not anticipate that those who have reservations about assisted dying will be queuing up to be the commissioner. I am not at all arguing that the commissioner could not be an enthusiast, but what happens if they become an activist and an advocate for it, and mission creep follows? That is very different. It is fine if it is somebody who says they voted for it—somebody in this Committee might well be that person, and they might have disagreed with me. How do you stop someone if they say, “Great, I am the commissioner. I am now in charge of monitoring this”, and so on? We have heard good examples so I will not repeat them.

Sorry, I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wants to intervene, but I am trying to finish.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, does the noble Baroness agree that senior and significant public appointments always involve an independent assessment panel making a recommendation, but moreover they also involve Select Committees of this House and/or the House of Commons taking evidence? In a recent example from July last year, my successor was questioned interminably, if I can exaggerate a little, by the Women and Equalities Committee over a small donation made years earlier to a campaign group, and she did not win approval from the committee, presumably on that basis. Parliamentary scrutiny and/or the independent panel are profoundly important. Does the noble Baroness agree that these are significant prerequisites?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That is a very helpful intervention. We can therefore see that the process of appointing the commissioner should not simply be in the gift of the Prime Minister and that there are processes—we have illustrated that. The difficulties in relation to accusations of neutrality or partiality and so on will come up in that process. However, at the moment, there is nothing in the Bill that would allow any of that to have come up before the appointment.

I suggest that there are a range of amendments in this group that the noble and learned Lord might want to look at carefully and accept, so that the role can be insulated from party politics, accusations of advocacy and speculation about what if this or that goes wrong. Maybe nothing will go wrong, but if something does go wrong with the commissioner’s conduct or they are seen to be acting as an advocate activist, there is nothing in the Bill that would mean that Parliament could do anything about it. We would just be stuck with it. Can the noble and learned Lord say what checks he sees for impartiality and guardrails against activism in the choice of commissioner and their role? What process will there be to ensure a commissioner’s impartiality in their role, even if not in their personal views? How can we make that guaranteed? How can we hold conduct to the highest account? At the moment, it seems to me there is no mechanism in the Bill to do so. Without that formal oversight, the way the Bill has set out appointing a commissioner is unsafe, and it should be looked at again.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I have tried in my contributions, which have been few although I have in fact been present for almost every moment of this Bill, to point out to the noble and learned Lord those occasions when his actions can make a great deal of difference. It seems to me that this is one of those.

I have been pressed by the media to speak about the Bill. I have refused every opportunity because I believe that the Bill should be debated in this Committee and there should be no attempt outside to make it difficult for us to say what we need to say in our proper carrying through of our business. If I had appeared on the radio, I would have said that the problem that we face is that there is so much in this Bill that is uncertain, unexplained and left to Ministers and particular appointees that we do not know how the Bill would work in practice.

This is not a question of whether you are on the side of the Bill or against it. It is that we have a duty to make this Bill work. I do not like the Bill and I do not agree with the principle, but I am not speaking from either of those points of view. I am speaking to try to get this Bill to be a suitable Bill to do the job which the promoters want it to do. I much resent the way in which people attack that, as if one is behaving improperly. There has been some disgraceful behaviour attacking one of the most distinguished Members of this Committee, who is knowledgeable and able, with a history of fighting for rights and the kind of behaviour that we should have for the terminally ill and the ill who need palliative care. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will apologise publicly for what has been said to the noble Baroness, because it is unacceptable.

Let me say why this is perhaps the most important groups that we have had. Outside, there is genuinely held concern about the mechanisms which will make this Bill the safest Bill there is. The person who does this job is clearly not going to be somebody who is against the whole principle. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, is perfectly right that, if this becomes the law, the law will be carried through. The question is whether the person who is going to do this job is someone who will command the respect and support of the nation as a whole. The amendments before us are simply an attempt to find ways of making sure that happens. They are not suggesting that it should be somebody who is opposed to the principle. I cannot imagine anybody applying for it if they do not believe in the principle—I am certainly not going to apply for it myself. The fact of the matter is that it is going to be somebody who supports the Bill and is prepared to carry it through, but that person must have the respect of the public as a whole, and the appointment therefore becomes very important.

I do not want to tread on sad circumstances, but we do not have a terribly good history of appointments in recent years, on both sides of the House, so this is not a party-political comment. It makes it very important to get it right at this point.

There is no question of filibustering in saying to the noble and learned Lord that this is at the heart of the problem. The Bill is supported in principle by many in the organisations that are going to carry it through, but it is opposed in particular by them all because the Bill has not met their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My concern is that if you take money out of a healthcare budget that is already in deficit, you will end up with an incentive for people to go down the road of saving money by working towards promoting assisted deaths for patients for whom additional care would mean them no longer feeling in despair in any way and having their quality of life returned to them. The NHS budget appears to be in such a difficult and parlous state that we have to be very careful that we do not spend NHS money on what is not a healthcare treatment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, are very useful in making us think about what an assisted dying service would or should look like if the Bill is enacted and what the implications are for funding it—public funding or who is going to pay.

We will come to a more detailed discussion on this in later groups, but I will just raise a few things. As I understand it, and I probably need some clarification from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the idea is that integrated care boards will be mandated to provide a fully funded assisted dying service. I would just like to get a sense of what is envisaged. If that is what is envisaged, we have to ask the question: is that reasonable?

As others have said, contrast that with hospices, which receive only a portion of their funding from ICBs and are heavily reliant on donations. I am sure we have all been to those coffee mornings and bought cakes, sold cakes and all the rest of it, trying to raise money for hospices. Meanwhile, palliative care services rely heavily on charity funding, recovering only 30% of their funds from the Government. I understand and note the important caveat from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I am not trying to say that the state should run everything at all times and that anyone who is doing anything in the charitable sector is a problem, but underfunding end-of-life care at the same time as fully funding ending-your-life non-care is a bit peculiar.

The danger is that if the sponsor’s aspirations come to fruition—if I have got them right—funding for assisted dying will start competing with and risks diverting resources away from palliative and end-of-life care, and both will compete for a share of a limited health budget. I note that professional bodies, such as the Royal College of GPs and the Association for Palliative Medicine, argue that the assisted dying service must have distinct funding to avoid such competition.

It was very important that the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, was frank with us when he noted that

“setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply … Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs”.

I would like to address a couple of questions to the Minister, who I know is confined to discussing workability, to ask how this prioritisation will work. Have the Government considered this? If funding will come from reprioritisation of existing budgets, are we not at this point being asked to legislate a direct conflict of interest, where integrated care boards will have to choose between, for example, funding palliative care and funding assisted dying? If it is not palliative care—I have overused that—which other services will be deprioritised in these choices in order to fund this? It is a limited budget. We keep being told that there is a scarcity of funds, so I want to understand that.

Finally, another reason to raise this—it is not directly to do with funding, but it counts—is that if assisted dying is to be paid for by the public purse and/or associated with the NHS, it could mean that assisted dying is treated as a standard healthcare solution. That surely could have a corrosive impact on trust between patients and clinicians, breaking their “first do no harm” contract with the public and flouting the Hippocratic oath.

Should doctors be expected to incorporate ending life into their routine roles if it is publicly paid for, when the major professional bodies explicitly warn against this? The BMA says that

“our view is that assisted dying should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways—it is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role.”

That more existential kind of question, or about medical ethics, will obviously be compromised when, if public funding and the taxpayer are paying for assisted death, those taxpayer-funded NHS doctors are surely going to be asked to do something that goes against their ethical code.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, some intricate and sophisticated schemes have been put forward concerning the nature of the panels. In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I thought how fascinating it was to hear about the ways in which the Law Society has approached this issue. We have heard a lot of fine speeches challenging everything from the size of the panel to whether it should have investigatory, prosecutorial and even quasi-judicial powers. I suddenly felt like I was in an episode of “CSI” or something; I thought, “They’re only panels”.

At this stage, things are getting so demanding and confusing—and, potentially, overlayered and bureaucratic—that I think we should take a step back. I am very sympathetic to why this has happened. It is driven by a desire for safeguarding and for these panels to have teeth. It is created by the loose wording in the Bill—in my opinion, it is poorly drafted—that means people are asking, “What will these panels be able to do? What should they be able to do? Can we join the dots?”

I want to go back and, more simplistically, if you like, take at face value the panels as they are described by the sponsors of the Bill. They will have three members: a social worker, a legal person, and a psychiatrist or somebody from the psychiatric profession. What will we expect of them? I ask this because just announcing that is not sufficient. Let me say why. I have put my name to Amendment 925A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, who explained very well what he is trying to do with his amendments. What is needed is a process for how you end up on a panel if you are one of those three people the sponsors want.

Amendment 925A would set up an independent appointments process. It talks about appropriate tests, interviewing people, vetting and so on. That is important, because the one thing we know from all the speeches we have heard is that these panels are going to be important and will make important decisions. You cannot put an ad in the paper saying, “Are you a social worker? Call in”. We have to think about what will be required of them. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has done us a real service by straightforwardly saying that we need to have a system and that this is necessary, albeit by no means sufficient, to counter any risk of these panels being inadequately staffed by the wrong or inappropriate people and to fulfil the aspirations of the Bill’s sponsors. It is absolutely necessary to counter any notion that the panel members will be just yes-men and yes-women who have turned up. In my opinion, we need to know that they are of the right calibre.

The role of panels is not just crucial in terms of safeguarding for those who go down the assisted dying route. We have heard some important speeches about safeguarding, but we must also consider that a proper process is required to protect panel members themselves from what is potentially likely: the blame game.

I have some qualms about the privacy issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, raised. He conceded that there might be some problems with this. It was another testy exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but we have to consider both sides of that exchange as being valid, because the panels are going to have to take on some difficult issues.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will remember what I thought was a tricky exchange on “Newsnight” last year, when he was asked about a situation where a 21 year-old could successfully request an assisted death and their parents would find out about it only after they were dead. Reference has made to the fact that that would happen with suicide, but in this instance, the difference is that heartbroken, grieving mums, dads or other family members would find out not only that their 21 year-old child was dead, but that they had been to a panel of social workers and so on, it had been okayed, and they had not known about it. It is only fair to note that they would want to know exactly on what basis that panel made the decision. They would ask what the qualifications of the people on that panel were. It has to be said that that 21 year-old could have a learning disability, Down syndrome or a previous history of mental illness and had tried to commit suicide in the past. Any people with a similar illness could actually be granted the right to an assisted death by that panel.

You can imagine the multiple scenarios. I thought of that, because I remember in Committee in the other place, Naz Shah, the Labour MP, made an excellent thought-provoking contribution when she said that when such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers and so will the media. They will want to know who the panel members were and why they made the judgment that they did.

There is a lot at stake here. I do not necessarily agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that everything should be in the public domain, but there will be demands to know what is going on. Is it being hidden away?

The way that Amendment 925A sets up a process will, in the end, protect people, because otherwise, panel members are likely to be on the receiving end of some intrusion whether they like it or not. We have to make sure that the right people are on the panel.

I also just wanted to raise the staffing of these panels. This feels very banal after some of the things people have been talking about, but are there enough social workers and psychiatrists around to go on to the panels? This seems to be a rather practical problem before we get anywhere. At the moment, in terms of professional panellists, there is one psychiatrist on each panel, yet the most recent workforce data shows that one in six consultant psychiatric posts is unfilled. So, that shortfall must cause problems. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said:

“As things currently stand, mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands”.


I am just worried that, if the commission struggles to find enough psychiatrists, the temptation will be to appoint anyone available and willing who can be ticked-boxed as a mental health professional. That is a bit nerve-wracking, which is why interviews, qualifications and so on are important.

The same resource deficit challenges exist in terms of legal members who, after all, we are told will replace judges in a way, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. But who are these legal members? Where will they be found, given the immense financial and resource constraints on the justice system that are so bad, we are told, that the Government are embarking on judicial vandalism, in my opinion, in sacrificing jury trials? If there is a problem of scarcity, is the recruitment of real legal expertise to the panel guaranteed?

Finally, on the third panel members, the social workers, given what the British Association of Social Workers have said about the sector being at capacity—and it has noted that the panel proposals are not resource-light—noble Lords can see that there might be a problem. The shortages of all three panel member professionals are not evenly distributed throughout the country, so what does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, think about a postcode lottery? What if you cannot find the legal expertise, social worker and psychiatrist in one part of the country where there is a great need? Has he consulted, as the sponsor of the Bill, with the likes of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Association of Social Workers about workforce pressures?

My final question is for the Minister, with regard to the panels. What assessment have the Government made of their workability, given the problems raised by the professional bodies of social workers and psychiatrists? If there are not enough people available, surely the panels will not be workable and therefore this part of the Bill needs to be sorted out; otherwise, there is no point passing it as it stands, because it will never happen.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, not least because I often do not agree with her but I did agree with several of the things she has just said. She started off by talking about the dangers of intricacy in what we lay down in the Bill—about how the panels should conduct themselves. The more I listened to the speeches and the more I read the amendments, the more worried I was about not only the overly bureaucratic nature of this, and the over-engineering of the processes the noble Baroness referred to, but the invasion of privacy on many levels.

We all recognise the role of the panels in safeguarding against abuse, but there will be a range of people. I was thinking of how I would feel on one of the panels, being interrogated along the lines of some of these amendments. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, says that I must be asked whether I have discussed the request with my next of kin and any other persons I am close to. Where someone has not done so, they will be asked to discuss their reasons for not doing so. That is way too intrusive and well beyond a way of finding out whether I have been coerced in this situation. It goes much too far, is over-engineered and, in the words we started off with today, is not kind to the majority of those who will be seeking help in circumstances they find intolerable. They find the way in which they are dying intolerable; it is not that they want to end their life, but it is because they are dying. I find that the whole tenor of this conversation does not think about the people who are going to be involved in, and subject to, this process. We have to think about them as well, and balance it with the sort of protections that are needed to make sure that bad things do not happen within these processes.

I was also surprised at the level of involvement in the amendment about children and information in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—and she and I agree on many things. This is desperately personal stuff within families. The idea that not only should you be consulted on why you have not spoken to a child about this, but that you should have to nominate someone else to report your death, and then you should make sure that there are bereavement services, opens up a whole area. Just like palliative care, bereavement services are very patchy—all over the place—and vary tremendously. Why should this category of parental loss be subject to the obligation of the state to provide bereavement services, as against every other sort of parental loss?