Lords Chamber

Friday 21st November 2025

(began 1 hour, 18 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
10:06
10:09
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
Moving Moving Non-commercially Moving Non-commercially into Moving Non-commercially into the Moving Non-commercially into the UK Moving Non-commercially into the UK. Moving Non-commercially into the UK. By 2024, there were 368,000 dogs moving. These were not my Lord's day trippers. Many were one way trippers, illegally imported dogs, many poorly bred, poorly kept unsocialised vulnerable to ill health.

In 2025, the PDSA estimated that 21,000 dogs were imported with cropped ears, a mutilation illegal in this country in 2023. The Cats Protection estimated that 65,000 cats had been imported, many of which had been declawed. Another illegal process in the UK. So this bill, my Lords, will bring these practices to an end. It closes a loophole in pet travel rules that have been exploited for profit, and introduces a proportionate limit on the number of pets that can be brought in in a single, non-commercial movement.

It makes it harder for unscrupulous individuals to abuse the system. The bill also grants the government powers to introduce secondary legislation to restrict low welfare welfare imports, by prohibiting the import of puppies and kittens, for example, under six months of age, restricting the import of heavily pregnant animals and of pets that have been subject to mutilation, like ear cropping and like declawing in cats. I welcome the government's assurances that they intend to work with stakeholders to consider appropriate exemptions to these restrictions, as these regulations are further developed.

I echo the government's words of caution that any exemptions must be extremely selective and must not allow loopholes to be created that could be exploited. This bill, my knowledge, is a testament to what we can achieve when we work together across this House. I know noble Lords will support its passage and help us to take this important step forward to ending pet smuggling and improving the welfare of pets brought into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. We can be proud that we are a nation that truly loves our pets nation that truly loves our pets and legislates for them. To dogs, cats and ferrets. Who will in the future be protected by this new law? And that is a tribute to all those And that is a tribute to all those vets, owners and rescue charities who have dealt with these terrible cruelties and campaigned for change. I congratulate my Liberal Democrat I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet doctor, Danny Chambers, who has made this a law Chambers, who has made this a law so soon after becoming an MP.

Heartfelt thanks. Also go to the Heartfelt thanks. Also go to the noble Lord Trees and to the Baroness Hayman, the Minister, for all the work that they have done to all the work that they have done to deliver this, but also my thanks to every parliamentarian and it is every parliamentarian and it is wonderful to see so many here today to mark this moment. Every
10:12
10:13
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
dogs and ferrets currently suffer through the smuggling trade. There will be a great many animal lovers across the whole of the United Kingdom, who will be incredibly grateful to the noble Lord Lord Trees today, and we thank him for pursuing this with a laser focus which will now be enshrined in law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend from the front bench finally responds. I ought to say the spirit of this morning, that there is a four legged member of this House here, this side, who would like to thank everyone involved on behalf of his species.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved on behalf of his species. Well done. My Lords. I'm very, very pleased

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm very, very pleased to be able to speak at the Third Reading of this private member's bill. Ending puppy smuggling was a bill. Ending puppy smuggling was a government manifesto commitment, and we've been really delighted to support the this animal Welfare support the this animal Welfare Bill through both houses of Parliament. So I'd like to thank Parliament. So I'd like to thank again, my noble friend, and I will call him my noble friend, the Lord Trees, for his excellent stewardship of the Bill through stewardship of the Bill through this House, and also thank Doctor Danny Chambers, MP, for so carefully guiding this bill through carefully guiding this bill through the other place and for working so constructively with us in constructively with us in government.

And my partner, my department is now going to be taking forward that crucial task of implementing the measures that have been set out by Lord Trees just now,
10:15
10:16
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill do now pass. The question. Is that this bill do now pass, as many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, before we move on to the second day of Committee of the the second day of Committee of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill. I'll make a statement about proceedings, as I did last week. I hope this as I did last week. I hope this will again help with planning, and it is in line with how business it is in line with how business proceeded last Friday. Firstly, I would like to again thank on behalf of all members, the staff and the public Bill office.

Yeah, who have again had to work late into the evening, well beyond anything that evening, well beyond anything that is reasonable to deal with. The over 1000 amendments to this bill. over 1000 amendments to this bill. I also want to thank, on behalf of the whole House, the clerks Doorkeepers attendants, Hansard Doorkeepers attendants, Hansard staff, the broadcasting unit, catering staff, school staff and police who have supported the preparation for this important second day committee and are delivering for the House today. delivering for the House today.

Here, the Government Whips Office circulated the updated grouping circulated the updated grouping list yesterday. My noble friend, Lord Falconer of Thoroton has proposed a target for today's debate, as was the case last week. I would expect the House to rise at
10:18
None Portrait Business of the House
-

a convenient point around 3 p.m. in line with usual procedures and in line with the companion, we line with the companion, we maintain the typical flexibility to rise slightly before or slightly beyond this point in order to conclude the group being debated. Ultimately, this remains in the Ultimately, this remains in the hands of the House. I will return to Dispatch Box this afternoon to further advise the House if I think further advise the House if I think there will be useful.

There are, though, a few other points I wish to make before we begin today's Committee stage. It is important to remind ourselves that this is remind ourselves that this is Committee stage. A noble Lords should address their remarks to the amendments under consideration and amendments under consideration and not make long Second Reading speeches going way beyond the substance. The amendments being substance. The amendments being debated. The Second Reading of this bill has passed. It lasted two long days. I expect, as I believe all noble Lords do, that despite sincerely held views and differences of opinion, we will at all times conduct ourselves with courtesy and respect for each other and show the public watching our and show the public watching our debates.

The House of Lords, in the best possible light. So please refrain from doing anything that will bring that into question. The acoustics are excellent in this chamber, and the microphones are very sensitive. A noble Lord should not be holding conversations in the chamber or making remarks. They would not like to be broadcast live. If you wish to speak to other noble Lords, please retire to the Prince's Chamber. The royal gallery. The peers lobby or the Long Room and return when your conversation has ended.

Several noble Lords contacted me last Friday after after the last debate, to express their frustration with other noble Lords who spent large parts of the debate talking to others around them and causing annoyance and inconvenience. Please do not do this, my Lords. I wish to reiterate again that the bill before us today is a private member's bill, and the noble Lord in charge of the bill is my noble friend, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and not the Ministers on the front bench.

This is not a government bill. It will not become a government bill. The government remains neutral on the bill. That position is not going to change. Having made those opening remarks, which are said to assist the House,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we should now move on to debate the issues of substance before us. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. It has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of life bill. Lord Falconer of life bill. Lord Falconer of Thoroton. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill, as many of that opinion will say, content. Contrary, not content. The contents Contrary, not content.

The contents have it. In clause one. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. My Lords. We come to a key concern in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to a key concern in this bill the very real risks of coercion and pressure to seek an coercion and pressure to seek an assisted death. While the bill acknowledges coercion. It does not fully address the dynamics of fully address the dynamics of domestic abuse at the end of life, nor the intersectional risks faced by women, by those who are disabled, by women, by those who are disabled, whether long term or through illness or from ethnic minority illness or from ethnic minority backgrounds.

ONS data showed that in the year from March 20th 23 to
10:21
10:22
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
the Covid 19 pandemic. Reported incidences of domestic abuse to third sector and statutory agencies third sector and statutory agencies have increased by over 60%. A systematic review by Michelle Mitchell and colleagues, covering years 2000 to 2021, found the years 2000 to 2021, found the incidence of abuse increased in terminal illness, and these results resonated with Jamila Hussain's resonated with Jamila Hussain's findings in Bradford. People with life limiting illness experience a life limiting illness experience a range of abusive behaviours in three broad categories.

Coercive three broad categories. Coercive and controlling behaviour, emotional and physical abuse and neglect and financial abuse. Financial abuse is particularly rife in its many forms. Take the rife in its many forms. Take the relative who goes to the cash machine for their relative, who is ill, and quietly pockets some of ill, and quietly pockets some of the cash, or quietly steals valuables, or the family keen for their relative to die before a fixed term life insurance runs out. fixed term life insurance runs out.

Yes, my Lords, I've seen it. They wanted a new car. Emotional abuse wanted a new car. Emotional abuse includes telling the person that they were a burden, either directly or indirectly, through conversations designed to be overheard by the person who is ill. And some are told they're not dying fast enough. Abuse affects treatment decisions and can lead to people missing out on curative treatment through making adverse decisions about their care. For some women, death is the only way out that they can see from their situation.

It reflects the national data where suicide is now the commonest cause of domestic abuse related deaths. The Oregon data shows that feeling a burden to family or carers has been stated as an end of life concern by over 47% of people having an assisted death. This was higher than the under 30% who cited inadequate pain control or concern about it as a reason. After the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner's evidence to the Select Committee, I did recheck the official reports.

Oregon does not collect data to understand if there have been problems with coercion, nor does it report on those turned down for lethal drugs. This bill has been publicised as being about pain, but does not mention pain at all. Specialist palliative care can deal with pain, detecting the coercive threats, humiliation and intimidation, which are usually subtle and consistently maintained out of sight of anyone in authority, is far harder. It is the complaints about the heating bills, family carers being fed up at having to prepare drinks and food, groaning when asked for something.

So many ways to give the message that you're a nuisance and would be better off. Dead abuse impacts patients mental health and wellbeing leads to feelings of loss of control, entrapment, powerlessness and depression. But health and care professionals lack confidence in identifying abuse. It is rarely detected by doctors. Why? Because dependence limits disclosure. Illness increases women's dependence on the on the perpetrators, making disclosure harder in the last months, weeks, and days of life. Even when patients when professionals ask directly.

Disclosure requires time to build trust with the same professional who understands how abuse presents. At the end of life, in different cultural contexts, and who can offer practical support such as safe housing, financial help and, if needed, support for dependents. Without this, disclosure is too risky. Most women in Doctor Hussain's group said they would not dare to disclose abuse during an assisted dying assessment. As currently set out. They felt the process was too brief, too medicalised and too uncertain to guarantee their safety.

I recall a patient whose pain was not controlled on 1000mg of morphine a day. After a few days in our hospice, she disclosed to a care assistant at night the years of worsening abuse that she had endured, total distress from hidden abuse had given her total pain. Social work intervention and safeguarding in place was the solution and she went out to a new home, needing only 60mg a day. Disclosure is more likely in a trusted relationship with someone they can know, can look in the eye and know will work hard to improve their situation.

In today's NHS, continuity of care is not the norm. It is fragmented with inadequate transfer of information between sectors. Patients do not see the same person time and time again, whether doctor, nurse or other professional. That is why it's essential that information is sought from police callouts to a domestic disturbance. Local authority records to reveal any safeguarding issues in the household. Clinical teams who have been involved, social care, community carers and family members who may well be aware of abuse but had not known how to disclose it.

My Lords, let me come on to another type of subtle subliminal pressure also addressed in this group of amendments that, arising from whatever the doctor suggests under the Montgomery and McCulloch rulings, patients must be informed of all possible treatments appropriate to that condition. And if a doctor says and there is the option of an assisted death, the patient will hear that I know what lies ahead for you, and you should consider ending it now. A Canadian lawyer told me of his friend who had a stroke, and on being taken out of the ambulance, was asked whether he wanted treatment or made medical aid in dying.

Their term for assisted death and of patients repeatedly asked by different doctors in the hospital time and again about made and the corrosive effect that that has. So the amendment in the name of the of Baroness Fox of Buckley and others is particularly important. It does not prevent conversations, but it would stop subtle, coercive influences from doctors who may be under pressure, who may feel that they have to raise this. Just as the problems of DNR orders arose during Covid, or with some of the abuses of medical power and inappropriate surgery that was in the headlines not that long ago.

My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line four. Leave out a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page one, line four. Leave out a and insert an independent. Element in this group. My amendment 118 introduces an independent financial review background check on close relatives background check on close relatives for eligibility can proceed, and it aims to block eligibility where there is known financial abuse risk. there is known financial abuse risk. My amendment 462 aims to make coercion and financial abuse coercion and financial abuse checking a statutory duty of both the Commissioner and the Multidisciplinary Review Panel.

My Multidisciplinary Review Panel. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay has really set out some of Finlay has really set out some of the issues, concerns about coercion and I do not need to repeat it. I am a long standing supporter of am a long standing supporter of hourglass, an amazing organisation devoted to combating abuse of older devoted to combating abuse of older people. They are neutral, of course, on the bill. But their chief executive, in evidence to the House executive, in evidence to the House of Commons, wrote there is an epidemic of abuse directed against older people at the moment.

Some of older people at the moment. Some of it is due to the economic climate we are in with people just wanting to have their inheritance now, and to have their inheritance now, and some of it is due to the fact that older people feel like a burden.
10:31
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
Evidence also given at that time by the Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that except with overt direct coercion, coercion can be very, very difficult to detect, as very, very difficult to detect, as evidenced by anyone, including doctors. Subtle and unintended coercion can also occur within a therapeutic relationship. As noble Baroness Lady Finlay so well pointed out between clinicians and patients, and evidence from Alan Thomas, professor of old age psychiatry from Newcastle psychiatry from Newcastle University for the Association for Palliative Medicine, said in my clinical work, I have had many clinical work, I have had many encounters with vulnerable older people who are being coerced into making decisions.

The fundamental making decisions. The fundamental problem with the bill here is the assumption that such coercion can assumption that such coercion can be detected by 1 or 2 clinical assessments carried out by the coordinating doctor and the assessing doctor. This is a seriously inadequate approach. My Lords, I recognise the Bill already accepts the risk of financial benefit by prohibiting anyone who is a beneficiary under a will, or is a beneficiary under a will, or may otherwise benefit financially or materially from the death, from or materially from the death, from serving as an assessing doctor or witness.

But I doubt that sufficient, even with the mandatory training that is already also encompassed within the bill. It is not clear how a doctor, even with financial abuse training is required, is meant to carry out this investigation. Given especially the cannot audit a patient or be expected to have accounting knowledge. Similarly, my amendments, first of all, propose an independent financial review and background check on close relatives before eligibility can proceed. It aims to block eligibility where this is known.

Financial abuse risk if noble Lords are concerned about the practical implications of this. I would just point out that we already have legislation in relation to live organ donation, providing a precedent to the human tissue. Authority must ensure that there has been no reward or offered for organ donation, and that there is valid consent in place for the removal and use of an organ. And my Lords, it embraced within. That is an independent review process with both the donor and the recipient.

So we do have a precedent in law at the moment as to how a review could be undertaken, checking if a close relative has a history of financial crime serves as a necessary preventative safeguard by identifying individuals most likely to engage in financial exploitation, regardless of whether they are listed as a beneficiary in the current will. And my Lords, I believe that some kind of proactive check in the way I've suggested has to be brought in and goes and needs to go beyond merely addressing overt coercion.

My Lords, my amendment 62 aims to bring coercion and financial abuse checking as a shared statutory duty of both the Commissioner and the Multidisciplinary Review Panel from older people, perhaps from disabled people's perspective. These amendments are critical because many disabled individuals rely on family or carers for financial, personal and social support, making them of course, much more potential to potentially at risk of coercion or financial pressure. My Lords, so what I'm proposing, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, when he winds up, will be able to respond positively to these suggestions is that we introduce a proactive, evidence based method for detecting potential coercion before any reversible action is taken.

And I also believe, my Lord, that by involving formally, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the panel in reviewing these financial safeguards, it does ensure the oversight and accountability which I believe is missing from the current bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Support of Lord Hunt of Kings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath amendment. In fact, I'm introducing amendments 118 and 118B, which follow his amendment 118. I'm also in support of amendments 45, 46, 47, 49 and 58. First, I would 46, 47, 49 and 58. First, I would just like to say this is an atheist bill that assumes there is nothing after death, which is not a neutral, after death, which is not a neutral, but an ideological position to those without an active belief that there is something after death, I there is something after death, I would say, how can you be so sure? What makes the point that it is an What makes the point that it is an atheist Bill? Because it decentralises death and by so doing decentralises death and by so doing it opens the door to very many evils, including coercion and pressure.

The subject of this group, pressure. The subject of this group, this bill itself, in a way, is coercive. It gives oxygen to dark coercive. It gives oxygen to dark thoughts, which can loom especially large when our best days seem to lie behind us, when we are no longer contributing to family and society in the way we once did, society in the way we once did, culturally and societally. It encourages and influences them as
10:36
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
much as any person referred to in amendments 45 and 46, two of my friends with terminal conditions friends with terminal conditions both followed earlier stages of this bill in the other place, and told me the subject very airing told me the subject very airing made them feel that they were a burden. The message, legislation burden. The message, legislation and policy should be amplifying is you will not walk the valley of the shadow of death on your own. We should be encouraging people to make and keep those relationships make and keep those relationships that will carry them through life and through that dark valley.

Others might also have dug out the words of the Times columnist Matthew Parris, quoted in a debate on assisted suicide in the Other Place in April 2004. He said that although your time is up will never be in order to the elderly, disabled, severely ill and the others to whom assisted suicide others to whom assisted suicide will inevitably be extended will inevitably be extended eventually it May 1st day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands. And that's a everybody understands.

And that's a good thing, as the right hon. Stephen Timms said in that debate, I cannot see that that would be a good thing. It seems to me that legalising assisted dying would impose a terrible dilemma on frail people, elderly people and others when they are at their most vulnerable point in their lives, especially on conscientious, frail people who do not want to die but also do not want to be a burden. I do not think there is any way to avoid imposing that dilemma, unquote.

We've heard from Baroness Finlay about the data from Oregon that over half have applied for assisted dying since 2017, not because they want to die, but because they feel they're a burden. Baroness Coffey amendment 47 guards against this internal coercion to use the Royal College of Psychiatrists phrase further, her amendment 49 includes body, corporate, institution or organisation alongside a person, which of course catches the government itself tragically, and I declare my interest as a Hampshire farmer.

There are farmers who have committed suicide ahead of the imposition of the family farm tax, choosing to die early so their land is passed on intact. Law and policy starkly influence personal decisions. Hence our responsibility as lawmakers to take these unforeseen consequences into account and not brush them aside. Turning to amendment 58, Baroness Grey-Thompson is absolutely right to focus on lack of care as a disadvantage that pressurises if death. If death looks as if it might be painful and protracted, then going through it alone, unnoticed and uncared for is too terrible to contemplate.

But surely we can do better than help someone act on that dread thought that no one would miss me. No one cares. Amendments 118A and 118B. My amendments to my and Lord Vallance amendment 118 would ensure wills are scrutinised and the backgrounds of friends as well as family are not overlooked. If sinister motives suggesting financial abuse are not assumed but at least considered. Legislating for motivation is notoriously difficult because motives are private, subjective, easy to disguise, instead, assisted dying legislation must use clear, objective safeguards to remove the possibility of improper motives influencing the process.

As an aside, I'm not sure this bill prevents any doctors involved from profiting from early death, but Doctor Harold Shipman did, of course, inveigle himself into wills of some of his victims. And that would also be a red flag if found in the commissioner's check on wills. So may I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, why this bill does not do more to exclude anyone with a financial or personal interest, and by extension, anyone who might have been under their influence.

We cannot draft either for compassion or for malice, but we can protect applicants by making it clear from the outset that if anyone with suspect motives has any involvement, their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

application will fall. My Lords, by contrast, I rise as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, by contrast, I rise as an atheist and humanist, but I mainly rise to move my amendment 45 mainly rise to move my amendment 45 to add the word encouraged after coerced. I support the general theme of the amendments in this theme of the amendments in this group, which largely tackle the need to strengthen safeguards against patients being indirectly influenced into opting for assisted death, often coercive in all but death, often coercive in all but name, all of these loopholes undermine any certainty that the choice, in inverted commas, is autonomously made.

My amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wickham, may appear to be a small change, just adding one be a small change, just adding one word. But before anyone concludes that I'm trivially tabling amendments to waste time, I'd note amendments to waste time, I'd note that when we're dealing with a fundamental change in the state's relationship with its citizens, the NHS, relationship with patients, and life and death decisions, the specificity and appropriateness of
10:41
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
specificity and appropriateness of the words in the law change matter. At present, in the bill, doctors are only required to ascertain coercion or pressure. They're the only two words given in clause one, but there's no duty to even probe or ask broader questions about more subtle, insidious influences that could affect a person's decisions. Just to note, the concept of encouragement is not an arbitrary word. The encouragement of assistance in a suicide is illegal under the suicide act, but not in this bill.

Indeed, CPS policy guidance in relation to prosecuting those who've assisted suicide acknowledges that encouraging that word the victim as is a factor in favour of prosecution. It is also criminal to encourage a person to commit an offence under the Serious Crime Act. So the question is less why I'm bothering to move an amendment. Just to add in one word. Now the question is why did the sponsors of this bill leave that word out? That word encouragement. Adding the word encouragement allows a shift in perspective, in perception, in what undue influence can look like.

Even though there are real problems with spotting coercion or pressure. And we've heard many examples of that, the concepts at least have a hard edge. That is an overt sense in everyday parlance, at least, that you're talking about people doing something that they didn't really want to do. You don't say, oh, I had a really lovely day today. My husband coerced and pressurised me into doing dot, dot, dot, but there's a grey area of much more subtle intervention.

An individual could motivate, lead on, nudge someone into opting for an assisted death rather than being made aware of all the ways that that person might live out their limited time in as comfortable a way as possible. And it's that sort of encouragement that this amendment is trying to get at. My Lords, as I explained at Second Reading, one of my big dreads is that once assisted dying is normalised as a positive treatment option, that vibe shift won't be confined to medical scenarios.

It can and will mean it's popularised as a go to option in broader society. Consider this scenario you've just got the news that you have a terminal diagnosis about six months to live. You're frightened, you're shocked, you're seeking reassurance. It's a bleak time and you're depressed. Well, because you don't want to die. But then a third party family carer friend says, and I ascribe no motivation here, by the way, they say, have you thought about asking your GP for assisted death? I mean, I've been reading about it all over the place.

You can do that now, and at least that way you'd be able to have dignity in dying. And you know how much you hate hospitals and all those doctors fussing about you. Oh, and we all know you aren't good with pain, are you? And how will the kids cope with running around having to visit you if you're in and out of hospital? And wouldn't it be so lovely if you could choose when you go? Then we could all be with you at the end.

And all this is said in soothing, kind tones, and therefore you think, well, I really don't want to die. My instincts are to rage. Rage against the dying of the light. But I really don't want to be a nuisance either. And they know me so well. They know what I'm like, that I won't cope. They have my best interests at heart, so I suppose. Dot dot dot. It doesn't sound exploitative or coercive, but it's an iron fist in a velvet glove. And we have some cultural reference points here when we discuss how the Online Safety Act will tackle suicide sites, there's consensus about the problems of online influencers, encouraging vulnerable people into believing that suicide is a positive way out of their suffering.

There's widespread revulsion at those cajoling, siren voices, encouraging death as an attractive option. And in that context, none of us conclude that this encouragement isn't problematic because it isn't explicitly coercive. What this amendment seeks to do, then, is to get on to the fate of the bill, a duty to consider these more insidious forms of intervention that can have lethal consequences, and that compromise. One of the core justifications for this bill autonomy. If a patient has been encouraged in a way that shapes a decision against their instincts, this corrupts the notion of a decision freely made.

Protecting autonomy is something that should unite all of us here. Supporters and opponents of the Bill. Indeed, the central purpose of the eligibility criteria and the whole process from the first declaration is to ensure the patient is acting autonomously and has not been coerced or pressurised by any other person into making the decision to request assistance in their own death. I, like so many others from charities, royal societies, disabled and domestic abuse campaigns remain worried about the limited mechanisms in the bill to spot anything but the most overt direct coercion.

And we've already heard some brilliant speeches explaining the difficulties there. But if the patient was encouraged, that is even more of a threat to our assuredness that assisted death is a choice freely made autonomously. I'm therefore hoping that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner, will enthusiastically support my attempt at strengthening the language in the Bill that will emphasise this autonomy. I was, I have to confess, slightly aghast about the Committee stage. In the other place where MPs tabled a number of amendments to ensure much more explicit protections were included on the face of the bill.

Safeguards for individuals who might be vulnerable to coercion in all its forms, and more subtle interventions that could be characterised as encouragement. Yet amendment after amendment along these lines were rejected. So I'm hoping that this House will adopt a different approach and tighten up the drafting of the bill precisely so that autonomy is meaningful and not just a slogan.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page