Lords Chamber
10:07
None
-
None
My My Lords, My Lords, before My Lords, before we My Lords, before we begin, My Lords, before we begin, I My Lords, before we begin, I will make my usual brief remarks on how proceedings will run today. First, on the final Friday of the session, I give huge thanks on behalf of the whole House to all staff across the administration for their work facilitating all the sittings on this bill and all other private members bills this session. I know noble Lords are aware of the huge amount of work that takes place to enable us to undertake quality scrutiny.
In particular, I wanted to thank Michael Bleakley, who is the civil servant based in the government whips office. He has become a very well known figure to many noble Lords dealing with questions, queries, procedural points, preparing groups in a calm, professional, authoritative manner. One would expect from an exceptional public servant. Turning to the arrangements for today. As announced previously, I would look to adjourn proceedings at around 3 p.m. or earlier should the House conclude its business. Debate today will begin on the motion tabled by my noble friend Noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to take note of the motion to resolve to.
Into a committee and the amendments to that motion. Lord Porter will open the debate, followed by the noble Lady Baroness
In particular, I wanted to thank Michael Bleakley, who is the civil servant based in the government whips office. He has become a very well known figure to many noble Lords dealing with questions, queries, procedural points, preparing groups in a calm, professional, authoritative manner. One would expect from an exceptional public servant. Turning to the arrangements for today. As announced previously, I would look to adjourn proceedings at around 3 p.m. or earlier should the House conclude its business. Debate today will begin on the motion tabled by my noble friend Noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to take note of the motion to resolve to.
Into a committee and the amendments to that motion. Lord Porter will open the debate, followed by the noble Lady Baroness
10:09
Legislation: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - committee stage (day 14)
-
Legislation: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - committee stage (day 14)
Coffey. Following that debate, I understand Lord Faulks intends to beg leave to withdraw the motion that the House resolves into a committee, though it is, of course, for the House to decide. Should the House decide to go into committee. My noble friend has set two targets for today, my Lords. Some members have asked about whether this is Precedented. I have sought advice from the clerks. Understand that amendments to the motion to go into committee are precedented. But unusual progress of the debate today.
Ultimately, in the hands of the House, courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords who may have different opinions, remembering that they hold their views just as sincerely as you hold yours should be the cornerstone of our debate today and always in this House. With that, my Lords, I think we should move on to the business
**** Possible New Speaker ****
before us. Has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the terminally ill adults end of life Bill. Lord Falconer of Thoroton here. My Lords, I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. The question is that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Amendment Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move my amendment that this House take note of the progress of its scrutiny of the Bill during the current session. My Lords. Today is our final day scheduled for the terminally ill adults end of life bill. I am despondent that this bill, so important to so many, has not failed on its merits, but failed as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a result of procedural wrangling. Hear, hear. There is no prospect that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no prospect that the Bill can get through this House today or before prorogation. Ahead of the King's Speech on 13th May. Consequently, we cannot complete the Committee stage, let alone have a Report stage when we could have tested the House's views on the amendments proposed and had a Third
Ultimately, in the hands of the House, courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords who may have different opinions, remembering that they hold their views just as sincerely as you hold yours should be the cornerstone of our debate today and always in this House. With that, my Lords, I think we should move on to the business
**** Possible New Speaker ****
before us. Has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the terminally ill adults end of life Bill. Lord Falconer of Thoroton here. My Lords, I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. The question is that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Amendment Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move my amendment that this House take note of the progress of its scrutiny of the Bill during the current session. My Lords. Today is our final day scheduled for the terminally ill adults end of life bill. I am despondent that this bill, so important to so many, has not failed on its merits, but failed as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a result of procedural wrangling. Hear, hear. There is no prospect that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no prospect that the Bill can get through this House today or before prorogation. Ahead of the King's Speech on 13th May. Consequently, we cannot complete the Committee stage, let alone have a Report stage when we could have tested the House's views on the amendments proposed and had a Third
10:11
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
amendments proposed and had a Third Reading debate. If the elected chamber decides to return this bill to us in the next session, as I very much hope that they will, there will be ample time for us to pick up where we left off and complete the proper task assigned to us as a revising chamber. We are not a democratically elected house, but we are rightly held to account for what we do here or in this case, what we have not done.
Members of the public who support assisted dying by a very large margin will be asking themselves why Parliament has failed to enact a measure that they believed would and should become law after members of Parliament voted in favour of it in the other place. That is why I believe it is not only right, but also imperative that we take some time today to consider why we find ourselves in this position. I remain as committed as I have throughout the whole process to this bill, and so, I believe, do a majority in this House.
We know the majority of the Commons do. So do a majority of the public, as demonstrated in survey after survey by reputable polling organisations over a long period of time. The Assisted Dying Bill commands strong views in those circumstances. It is for us, in your Lordships House to debate with civility and with patience. We need to set an example for the way that we conduct this debate to everybody else engaged in the in the debate. I have kept that important point in my mind at all times in the course of this debate.
The public have had an eye on our proceedings in this matter in a way that they rarely do. Our constitutional role is to revise and propose amendments not to block. And I know because many noble Lords have said so, that it is not just supporters of this bill who believe that we have let ourselves and Parliament down, but maps. More importantly still, we have let down those terminally ill people and those who loved them, loved them, who were depending on us at least, to reach conclusions on the bill.
While this House has debated assisted dying on several occasions over the past two decades. For the first time, we have had before us a bill sent from the other place. Following unprecedented scrutiny and with clear majorities there at both second and Third Reading. The suggestion that members of Parliament did not deeply interrogate this bill in the other place, and that the issues it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raised were not properly dealt with, is profoundly mistaken. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Bill passed its Third Reading in the Commons in June after more than 100 hours of debate, after more than 100 hours of debate, including 29 sittings in Bill committee. Two full days of debate and report on the floor of the and report on the floor of the House, and a full day's debate at Second Reading and Third Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading, with no whipping and no guillotines. That is almost double the time given to scrutiny in the other place, for example, to the Children and Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we have been debating.
Altogether, the Bill Committee in the other place considered and debated over 600 amendments, accepting around a quarter of them, over 100 amendments were made in the sponsor's name and more than 30 amendments had been tabled by MPs and passed by MPs who had voted against the bill. As a result, we were sent a robust, safe bill that is at least as good, if not better, than most of those wide range of bills I have been associated with over the last 30 years.
There are, of course, have been important issues for this House to consider, but we have also got to consider how to ensure the assisted dying process, if there is to be one, is focussed on the patient and can operate in a way that is safe, but is not so burdensome that it becomes unworkable. We have debated all of these issues and very many others. We have had time to debate all the issues which we needed to be debated at appropriate length.
Yet at the end of this session, having completed the Committee stage of only seven out of 59 clauses after 13 days of committee, we have reached no conclusion on any part of the Bill or on the question should we return the Bill to the Commons? The only Committee stage debates of equivalent length in the last 20 years in your Lordships House have been for massively larger bills. The 176 pages of the Welfare Reform Act took 17 seconds.
Sittings. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was 392 pages and required 15 sessions. The Crime and Policing Bill is 429 pages and is needed 15 sittings for a bill of this size, 51 pages. Following such intense scrutiny in the Commons and drawing upon the vast experience of other jurisdictions which have introduced assisted dying around the world, we have made LA slow progress in our consideration. We could unquestionably have got through all the stages of our consideration of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill if we had conducted ourselves, as we normally do. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. There was a letter sent to all members of the House on the 7th of members of the House on the 7th of September last year, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Baroness Burger. That letter sought to persuade the House, letter sought to persuade the House, and I agreed to introduce a select committee. It said rightly, that at that point, that is, in September we had several months in which it was entirely possible to complete all stages of the Bill, and yet we have not.
Why has this happened? It has happened because the Order Paper has been flooded with amendments, because of the speed with which we have got through. Our work has been unnecessarily slow, and because some opponents, not all, resisted all attempts, including by some noble friends who are no friends of the bill, to agree a path by which we could reach a conclusion. Over 1200 amendments across 80 groups, no more than four groups dealt with in a day at committee and in most committee days less.
The debated committee has found some areas where improvements can be made, and I have accepted that, as would be normal in any bill of this significance. For example, the Eating disorders clause, the express reference to multidisciplinary teams, extra protections for those between 18 and 25, and in 12 of the 14 cases, proposed amendments have been put down by myself to deal with the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations. Overall, the debates have revealed the strength of the bill and the considerable thought that has gone into these issues.
Before the bill reached this place and as it went through the other place, by way of example, and it's a key example, the key predictions of five stages of safeguard that have to be gone through the two doctor structure. And the panel is a structure which works and it is well thought out. It is perfectly legitimate to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested, that we do. Whether the High Court is a. Is better than a panel. I do not think that it is, but it's an issue that was fully debated in the Commons, and it is a point of principle, which is.
If we had acted as we normally do, we would have resolved at report by agreement or by a vote, but we never got there. I tried on a number of occasions to agree an informal timetable, where the key issues might be debated on the floor of the House at committee, but in a proportionate way so as to ensure both scrutiny and that we complete our work in a reasonable way. I am very grateful to those who have attended countless open meetings I have had, particularly those who made clear that they would vote against the bill at Third Reading, at Third Reading, but also that also believe that it is necessary for this House to finish its scrutiny in in its entirety so it can pass a final judgement.
Could I say that the noble Lord Lord Carlile was hugely helpful in discussions last December about what the most important issues for this House to consider were. On Wednesday, the 3rd of December last year, we circulated a revised group grouping. After a meeting with other interested peers. After that meeting, we wrote. We believe that the more that colleagues are prepared to engage in these discussions in good faith, the better it will be for the orderly and timely conduct of the extremely important debates we are having on the issue.
We would welcome the co-operation of as many peers as may wish to contribute. The noble and learned Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss, who I am happy to see in her place today, who spoke powerfully on my motion on the 8th of January about the danger to the reputation of this House, helped to agree a set of 13 themes which might prove the basis for a sensible timetable for committee. Each of these attempts has been unsuccessful. It was impossible to get enough of those who tabled amendments to agree.
Could I express my gratitude to the Government Chief Whip who, without ever breaching the neutrality the government adopted, was helpful and cooperative at all stages in the course of this bill, going through this House and for all in his office in particular, as he has already said, Michael Blakely, who has dealt so patiently with the groupings each week. The Chief whip made available 16 days for consideration, which was unprecedented for a private member's bill. The bill did need more time than the more normal private member's bill.
It got it. The reason the bill has failed to complete its processes in this House is not because of a lack of time. It is because a small minority were not willing to co-operate, as we normally do, to ensure that there can be proportionate. Debate over and over. Opponents said it was inappropriate that the bill was dealt with by a private member's bill. I disagree with that. Assisted dying is not a bill which could ever have been in a manifesto because it is a matter of conscience.
A private member's bill is the normal way that most issues of conscience are dealt with. There are other legislative vehicles, but this was the most appropriate throughout the process. The sponsor in the other place and myself have had the fullest official support, which has never breached in any way the neutrality of the government. We have access to parliamentary counsel for drafting and officials to help us with the development of policy options. Although the policy choices have remained rightly for I these officials have been absolutely first class.
I have had considerable experience of doing bills as a Minister. This team has been complete and second to none. There are those who say if the sponsor agreed many more points put in committee, the bill would have got three through. I took on board many points, as I thought I should, but so very many of the amendments couldn't possibly be agreed. They were impractical and placed intolerable burdens on the patient. Where there were amendments with legitimate views on both sides, which I resisted, they should have been dealt with at report much more than letting ourselves down.
Are the very many people who support the bill and who feel we have not treated them properly. Elise Hu, some of us met on Wednesday, spoke of the metastatic breast cancer that has left her with a life expectancy of two years. She said obviously, I hope to beat the odds and be a medical miracle, but the meds keep stopping working and I'm running out of meds to try. But I'm living life to the full as much as I can, filled with beautiful friends and family.
But I am terrified. Not terrified of dying per se, but terrified of a long, drawn out, painful death. This bill will come too late for me, but I'm here to fight for the many thousands that will come after me and their families, in the hope that they'll be given the choice of a dignified, pain free death. People need meaningful end of life choice, and the unelected peers need to accept the will of the people.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Juliette, whose husband died from terminal oesophageal from terminal oesophageal oesophageal cancer, said, as someone who lived with lived experience of watching my husband experience of watching my husband die slowly and painfully from a terminal illness, I am deeply saddened and disappointed to see saddened and disappointed to see the assisted dying bill being stalled in the House of Lords. I feel that people like me are not feel that people like me are not being listened to. After the successful vote in the Commons, I had such hope that this legislation would pass.
I am holding on to hope, but I am also realistic that time is running out before I end. Could I thank first the staff of your Lordships House for their patience, courtesy and consideration throughout these difficult Fridays. Could I thank all the people in the country who have given unstinting support to the change in the law, and especially those who are terminally ill themselves, or who have a loved one, is terminally ill, and who have shown such courage and forbearance in telling their stories, and have been utterly bewildered by the way we have behaved.
Could I think, could I thank all noble Lords and noble Baroness who have assisted the Bill over the last ten months? I have never been more proud of being part of a group such as this. We have tried our very best to ensure that your Lordships House would behave as it normally does, and make decisions on the Bill. We have failed because of a small minority. The consequence is that your Lordships House have disrespected so many of those in the public who supported the Bill.
It is clear that the issue will not go away, and nor should it until it is resolved. Parliament can and must come to a decision. It is now for the Other place to decide what we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do next. My Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that the House do now again resolve the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been made by Lord Falconer of been made by Lord Falconer of Thoroton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper amendment to the amendment in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
name of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Lord moves in mysterious ways as a well-known phrase. But, my Lords, today, perhaps it's better to say the Lords move in mysterious ways. I came back to the Council of Europe specifically to continue debate on this bill, because I believe that scrutiny is necessary. And the purpose of a sitting Friday on this bill, I thought, was to debate the legislation before us, not to debate process.
But the reason I put this amendment in today to that of the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was in response to the letter circulated by the Bill sponsors to MPs this week, which I consider was actually somewhat misleading. I particularly put in the reference in my memory to the excellent reports prepared by respected cross-party committees, select committees of this House, the Constitution Committee, but in particular the DRC. The continuing claim that this bill is the safest in the world and was largely good to go in this House, perhaps with a few tweaks, just does not hold true.
The reports and recommendations therein of the two committees to which I referred were pretty damning. The unprecedented use of Henry VII's powers, the number of issues to be left to regulations, and so on. I have to say, if I were the sponsor of this bill, I'd have been absolutely embarrassed by the outcome of these reports. It was embarrassing to read. For peers who also support the principle of the bill, but those reports confirmed that this was a poor, flawed bill. Now, Second Reading I raised.
My main issue was guarding against indirect coercion, a topic that came up in particular with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But for certain, safety is not secure in this bill. Nevertheless, I suggested that while I would try to make improvements to the way the bill worked, I did feel then that the Commons might need to start again and to come up with a better bill. Now, for what it's worth, I wish the government had been actually more open on the discussions they were having with the bill's sponsors.
I respect the neutrality that the government took, but it was particularly important to see how this bill might work in practice. Time after time, pretty much parliamentary routes proved fruitless. Freedom of information, freedom of information. Requests were turned down repeatedly, consistently, even when the departments actually bothered to reply, and certainly haven't replied to lots of the appeals that were made. But the ongoing response was that discussions on how this might work or discussions that have happened would not be in the public interest to reveal that.
And so, my Lords, that led to me, and I think, others tabling perhaps more amendments than I had expected to do so, including those being raised on issues raised by the Royal Colleges, the Law Society and other distinguished bodies. Now, my amendments have largely tried to draw out how this bill would work in practice, whether the safeguards claimed would really provide the safeguards in practice, but also to consider the devolution issue. When the focus had flipped from an MoJ court led process to a largely health based bill.
And I'm conscious that the noble and learned Lord has commended the civil servants. I understand why he's done that. But what we did see by the introduction of the government officials is the whole inclusion of lots of Henry VII's powers. Exactly the things the report's thought were not appropriate. My Lords, the detail matters. I want how this legislation may operate to be determined here in Parliament, with lots more on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships often do on government bills, leaving lots of this to Unamendable secondary legislation is not appropriate.
More importantly, this important change should largely be in primary legislation, else we also end up with legal rulings, case law taking us down various paths. It's a well-established principle. Apart from human rights violations, that primary legislation is not overturned by the courts. But that is certainly not the case for secondary legislation. So it's important that when we discuss these matters, that we also discuss these issues on the floor of the House, because that also matters when it comes to court cases, not just conversations offline in rooms elsewhere, not being recorded by civil servants, all these other things that could be used potentially in future deliberations.
Now, my Lords, when I was a Minister, particularly as a Cabinet Minister, every Friday, I would personally download reports from the GCSE, the DPI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to check on the progress of legislation for which I was responsible. I have to say, while it's sometimes revealed issues that officials never brought to my attention when they'd been told off by GCSE and others, and that they soon learned that attention to detail really did matter. The reason I took such an interest in legislation presented to the House
Members of the public who support assisted dying by a very large margin will be asking themselves why Parliament has failed to enact a measure that they believed would and should become law after members of Parliament voted in favour of it in the other place. That is why I believe it is not only right, but also imperative that we take some time today to consider why we find ourselves in this position. I remain as committed as I have throughout the whole process to this bill, and so, I believe, do a majority in this House.
We know the majority of the Commons do. So do a majority of the public, as demonstrated in survey after survey by reputable polling organisations over a long period of time. The Assisted Dying Bill commands strong views in those circumstances. It is for us, in your Lordships House to debate with civility and with patience. We need to set an example for the way that we conduct this debate to everybody else engaged in the in the debate. I have kept that important point in my mind at all times in the course of this debate.
The public have had an eye on our proceedings in this matter in a way that they rarely do. Our constitutional role is to revise and propose amendments not to block. And I know because many noble Lords have said so, that it is not just supporters of this bill who believe that we have let ourselves and Parliament down, but maps. More importantly still, we have let down those terminally ill people and those who loved them, loved them, who were depending on us at least, to reach conclusions on the bill.
While this House has debated assisted dying on several occasions over the past two decades. For the first time, we have had before us a bill sent from the other place. Following unprecedented scrutiny and with clear majorities there at both second and Third Reading. The suggestion that members of Parliament did not deeply interrogate this bill in the other place, and that the issues it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raised were not properly dealt with, is profoundly mistaken. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Bill passed its Third Reading in the Commons in June after more than 100 hours of debate, after more than 100 hours of debate, including 29 sittings in Bill committee. Two full days of debate and report on the floor of the and report on the floor of the House, and a full day's debate at Second Reading and Third Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading, with no whipping and no guillotines. That is almost double the time given to scrutiny in the other place, for example, to the Children and Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we have been debating.
Altogether, the Bill Committee in the other place considered and debated over 600 amendments, accepting around a quarter of them, over 100 amendments were made in the sponsor's name and more than 30 amendments had been tabled by MPs and passed by MPs who had voted against the bill. As a result, we were sent a robust, safe bill that is at least as good, if not better, than most of those wide range of bills I have been associated with over the last 30 years.
There are, of course, have been important issues for this House to consider, but we have also got to consider how to ensure the assisted dying process, if there is to be one, is focussed on the patient and can operate in a way that is safe, but is not so burdensome that it becomes unworkable. We have debated all of these issues and very many others. We have had time to debate all the issues which we needed to be debated at appropriate length.
Yet at the end of this session, having completed the Committee stage of only seven out of 59 clauses after 13 days of committee, we have reached no conclusion on any part of the Bill or on the question should we return the Bill to the Commons? The only Committee stage debates of equivalent length in the last 20 years in your Lordships House have been for massively larger bills. The 176 pages of the Welfare Reform Act took 17 seconds.
Sittings. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was 392 pages and required 15 sessions. The Crime and Policing Bill is 429 pages and is needed 15 sittings for a bill of this size, 51 pages. Following such intense scrutiny in the Commons and drawing upon the vast experience of other jurisdictions which have introduced assisted dying around the world, we have made LA slow progress in our consideration. We could unquestionably have got through all the stages of our consideration of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill if we had conducted ourselves, as we normally do. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. There was a letter sent to all members of the House on the 7th of members of the House on the 7th of September last year, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Baroness Burger. That letter sought to persuade the House, letter sought to persuade the House, and I agreed to introduce a select committee. It said rightly, that at that point, that is, in September we had several months in which it was entirely possible to complete all stages of the Bill, and yet we have not.
Why has this happened? It has happened because the Order Paper has been flooded with amendments, because of the speed with which we have got through. Our work has been unnecessarily slow, and because some opponents, not all, resisted all attempts, including by some noble friends who are no friends of the bill, to agree a path by which we could reach a conclusion. Over 1200 amendments across 80 groups, no more than four groups dealt with in a day at committee and in most committee days less.
The debated committee has found some areas where improvements can be made, and I have accepted that, as would be normal in any bill of this significance. For example, the Eating disorders clause, the express reference to multidisciplinary teams, extra protections for those between 18 and 25, and in 12 of the 14 cases, proposed amendments have been put down by myself to deal with the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations. Overall, the debates have revealed the strength of the bill and the considerable thought that has gone into these issues.
Before the bill reached this place and as it went through the other place, by way of example, and it's a key example, the key predictions of five stages of safeguard that have to be gone through the two doctor structure. And the panel is a structure which works and it is well thought out. It is perfectly legitimate to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested, that we do. Whether the High Court is a. Is better than a panel. I do not think that it is, but it's an issue that was fully debated in the Commons, and it is a point of principle, which is.
If we had acted as we normally do, we would have resolved at report by agreement or by a vote, but we never got there. I tried on a number of occasions to agree an informal timetable, where the key issues might be debated on the floor of the House at committee, but in a proportionate way so as to ensure both scrutiny and that we complete our work in a reasonable way. I am very grateful to those who have attended countless open meetings I have had, particularly those who made clear that they would vote against the bill at Third Reading, at Third Reading, but also that also believe that it is necessary for this House to finish its scrutiny in in its entirety so it can pass a final judgement.
Could I say that the noble Lord Lord Carlile was hugely helpful in discussions last December about what the most important issues for this House to consider were. On Wednesday, the 3rd of December last year, we circulated a revised group grouping. After a meeting with other interested peers. After that meeting, we wrote. We believe that the more that colleagues are prepared to engage in these discussions in good faith, the better it will be for the orderly and timely conduct of the extremely important debates we are having on the issue.
We would welcome the co-operation of as many peers as may wish to contribute. The noble and learned Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss, who I am happy to see in her place today, who spoke powerfully on my motion on the 8th of January about the danger to the reputation of this House, helped to agree a set of 13 themes which might prove the basis for a sensible timetable for committee. Each of these attempts has been unsuccessful. It was impossible to get enough of those who tabled amendments to agree.
Could I express my gratitude to the Government Chief Whip who, without ever breaching the neutrality the government adopted, was helpful and cooperative at all stages in the course of this bill, going through this House and for all in his office in particular, as he has already said, Michael Blakely, who has dealt so patiently with the groupings each week. The Chief whip made available 16 days for consideration, which was unprecedented for a private member's bill. The bill did need more time than the more normal private member's bill.
It got it. The reason the bill has failed to complete its processes in this House is not because of a lack of time. It is because a small minority were not willing to co-operate, as we normally do, to ensure that there can be proportionate. Debate over and over. Opponents said it was inappropriate that the bill was dealt with by a private member's bill. I disagree with that. Assisted dying is not a bill which could ever have been in a manifesto because it is a matter of conscience.
A private member's bill is the normal way that most issues of conscience are dealt with. There are other legislative vehicles, but this was the most appropriate throughout the process. The sponsor in the other place and myself have had the fullest official support, which has never breached in any way the neutrality of the government. We have access to parliamentary counsel for drafting and officials to help us with the development of policy options. Although the policy choices have remained rightly for I these officials have been absolutely first class.
I have had considerable experience of doing bills as a Minister. This team has been complete and second to none. There are those who say if the sponsor agreed many more points put in committee, the bill would have got three through. I took on board many points, as I thought I should, but so very many of the amendments couldn't possibly be agreed. They were impractical and placed intolerable burdens on the patient. Where there were amendments with legitimate views on both sides, which I resisted, they should have been dealt with at report much more than letting ourselves down.
Are the very many people who support the bill and who feel we have not treated them properly. Elise Hu, some of us met on Wednesday, spoke of the metastatic breast cancer that has left her with a life expectancy of two years. She said obviously, I hope to beat the odds and be a medical miracle, but the meds keep stopping working and I'm running out of meds to try. But I'm living life to the full as much as I can, filled with beautiful friends and family.
But I am terrified. Not terrified of dying per se, but terrified of a long, drawn out, painful death. This bill will come too late for me, but I'm here to fight for the many thousands that will come after me and their families, in the hope that they'll be given the choice of a dignified, pain free death. People need meaningful end of life choice, and the unelected peers need to accept the will of the people.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Juliette, whose husband died from terminal oesophageal from terminal oesophageal oesophageal cancer, said, as someone who lived with lived experience of watching my husband experience of watching my husband die slowly and painfully from a terminal illness, I am deeply saddened and disappointed to see saddened and disappointed to see the assisted dying bill being stalled in the House of Lords. I feel that people like me are not feel that people like me are not being listened to. After the successful vote in the Commons, I had such hope that this legislation would pass.
I am holding on to hope, but I am also realistic that time is running out before I end. Could I thank first the staff of your Lordships House for their patience, courtesy and consideration throughout these difficult Fridays. Could I thank all the people in the country who have given unstinting support to the change in the law, and especially those who are terminally ill themselves, or who have a loved one, is terminally ill, and who have shown such courage and forbearance in telling their stories, and have been utterly bewildered by the way we have behaved.
Could I think, could I thank all noble Lords and noble Baroness who have assisted the Bill over the last ten months? I have never been more proud of being part of a group such as this. We have tried our very best to ensure that your Lordships House would behave as it normally does, and make decisions on the Bill. We have failed because of a small minority. The consequence is that your Lordships House have disrespected so many of those in the public who supported the Bill.
It is clear that the issue will not go away, and nor should it until it is resolved. Parliament can and must come to a decision. It is now for the Other place to decide what we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do next. My Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that the House do now again resolve the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been made by Lord Falconer of been made by Lord Falconer of Thoroton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper amendment to the amendment in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
name of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Lord moves in mysterious ways as a well-known phrase. But, my Lords, today, perhaps it's better to say the Lords move in mysterious ways. I came back to the Council of Europe specifically to continue debate on this bill, because I believe that scrutiny is necessary. And the purpose of a sitting Friday on this bill, I thought, was to debate the legislation before us, not to debate process.
But the reason I put this amendment in today to that of the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was in response to the letter circulated by the Bill sponsors to MPs this week, which I consider was actually somewhat misleading. I particularly put in the reference in my memory to the excellent reports prepared by respected cross-party committees, select committees of this House, the Constitution Committee, but in particular the DRC. The continuing claim that this bill is the safest in the world and was largely good to go in this House, perhaps with a few tweaks, just does not hold true.
The reports and recommendations therein of the two committees to which I referred were pretty damning. The unprecedented use of Henry VII's powers, the number of issues to be left to regulations, and so on. I have to say, if I were the sponsor of this bill, I'd have been absolutely embarrassed by the outcome of these reports. It was embarrassing to read. For peers who also support the principle of the bill, but those reports confirmed that this was a poor, flawed bill. Now, Second Reading I raised.
My main issue was guarding against indirect coercion, a topic that came up in particular with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But for certain, safety is not secure in this bill. Nevertheless, I suggested that while I would try to make improvements to the way the bill worked, I did feel then that the Commons might need to start again and to come up with a better bill. Now, for what it's worth, I wish the government had been actually more open on the discussions they were having with the bill's sponsors.
I respect the neutrality that the government took, but it was particularly important to see how this bill might work in practice. Time after time, pretty much parliamentary routes proved fruitless. Freedom of information, freedom of information. Requests were turned down repeatedly, consistently, even when the departments actually bothered to reply, and certainly haven't replied to lots of the appeals that were made. But the ongoing response was that discussions on how this might work or discussions that have happened would not be in the public interest to reveal that.
And so, my Lords, that led to me, and I think, others tabling perhaps more amendments than I had expected to do so, including those being raised on issues raised by the Royal Colleges, the Law Society and other distinguished bodies. Now, my amendments have largely tried to draw out how this bill would work in practice, whether the safeguards claimed would really provide the safeguards in practice, but also to consider the devolution issue. When the focus had flipped from an MoJ court led process to a largely health based bill.
And I'm conscious that the noble and learned Lord has commended the civil servants. I understand why he's done that. But what we did see by the introduction of the government officials is the whole inclusion of lots of Henry VII's powers. Exactly the things the report's thought were not appropriate. My Lords, the detail matters. I want how this legislation may operate to be determined here in Parliament, with lots more on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships often do on government bills, leaving lots of this to Unamendable secondary legislation is not appropriate.
More importantly, this important change should largely be in primary legislation, else we also end up with legal rulings, case law taking us down various paths. It's a well-established principle. Apart from human rights violations, that primary legislation is not overturned by the courts. But that is certainly not the case for secondary legislation. So it's important that when we discuss these matters, that we also discuss these issues on the floor of the House, because that also matters when it comes to court cases, not just conversations offline in rooms elsewhere, not being recorded by civil servants, all these other things that could be used potentially in future deliberations.
Now, my Lords, when I was a Minister, particularly as a Cabinet Minister, every Friday, I would personally download reports from the GCSE, the DPI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to check on the progress of legislation for which I was responsible. I have to say, while it's sometimes revealed issues that officials never brought to my attention when they'd been told off by GCSE and others, and that they soon learned that attention to detail really did matter. The reason I took such an interest in legislation presented to the House
10:32
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
was it does. Coming back to. I do not want this to be determined in the courts, particularly on the courts, particularly on secondary legislation. Now it's well known that I tabled 111 amendments, including one I amendments, including one I withdrew that included six clause ten parts. A third of those were just on Wales, which I think was actually a good debate. I'm actually a good debate. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Canvas and Baroness, Lady Smith of Canvas and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, when we discussed a key devolution issue in that regard.
But other issues that only came up and were scrutinised and starting to get answers on how this might work for another, amendments on things like face to face. As it stands, the bill today without amendment, very little needs to be face to face. A lot of this could be online, could be on the phone, could be by people abroad. All these sorts of issues start to raise questions on how will these safeguards really work. Panels on the face of the bill, I think are due to be in public, although in debating amendments, we learned that at the request of the applicant, they could be in private.
And going further on amendments, we discovered it was the intention of the bill sponsors that actually it would all be in private. And also, by the way, there could be pre-recordings, it could just be audio and we start to paint, for me, quite a different picture on how the panels or indeed other parts of the process can be done that really check about whether coercion is happening or has happened. Well trained social workers don't just read reports when they go to visit somebody, they're looking at different signals.
And it's those sorts of detail that only by doing amendments and having significant debate, that we started to understand how this might work in practice. A panel being available 24 over seven by the by teams potentially. So these sorts of things only came out as a result of going into detail. Recognising that all the information we've asked for to be released was not released. My Lords advocates expect to become full time job for people discussing artificial intelligence, discussing issues to do with power of attorney.
We didn't get on to the new amendments being proposed by the bill sponsor that basically you could keep going to a different doctor. So you got the answer you wanted. I hope we might still reach it. Probably not. Not this time. But being able to check or against potential coercion, that is what has worried people concerned about this bill the most, and that includes people who strongly support the principle. I do fear that many peers and many MPs are putting choice for some ahead of concern on coercion for others.
And just like happened in the Scottish Parliament, the more scrutiny this Bill has got, the more concerns people have had. That's why I was encouraged by very recent polling of the public that show that people want a safe bill and want the Lords to do their job. Just saying it so it is safe repeatedly is not enough. Now I'm a Democrat. I used to be an MP. I lost, I'm here and it is the choice of the Commons that if they decide to try and Parliament act, this bill, that is their absolute privilege and I respect that.
But what I do hope actually, is that they look at the issues that have been raised in this House, look carefully at what has gone through, not only in the Commons but here. And what are the unanswered questions and whether that bill, the Bill before us still today, is the right bill to achieve the ends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that they wish? Yes, of course. The noble Baroness will be aware, and I'm sure she will agree, that and I'm sure she will agree, that if the Bill comes back a second time to the Commons, it will come back here, and the effect of the back here, and the effect of the Parliament Act is not to stop further debate, but simply to prevent the House from blocking the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prevent the House from blocking the Bill and not returning it to the Lords. The Commons. Yes, I completely do. And that's why I say I respect if the MPs decide that they want to effectively use the Parliament Act process. That is their right, of course, but I would rather that we don't have to go through this whole again of then having to change the bill at this end. On what's been a flawed bill, and I appreciate I'm aware of the parliamentary process, but can I just say I completely understand the passions for people who want assisted dying to happen in this country.
A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or others as being a choice, as being a criteria. OK. Autonomy, as I say, versus the risk of coercion. But I do think that they should come up with a better bill. Now, my Lords, I'm very conscious. I've spoken for somewhat longer than I'd intended to. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two houses are different in their processes. Could have given examples of popular PMS.
One in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons, and then never made it through this House. But unconscious. Others do want to speak, and for what it's worth, I do actually want us to go into committee at some point today. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The original question was that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the itself into a committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been moved to set out on the Order Paper and a further amendment has Paper and a further amendment has been moved to that amendment. The question I therefore have to put is that Baroness Coffey amendment to that Baroness Coffey amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Falconer of Thoroton be agreed to.
My Lords, Baroness Campbell of My Lords, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed. She will be called as the third noble Lord to speak in the debate on this amendment.
But other issues that only came up and were scrutinised and starting to get answers on how this might work for another, amendments on things like face to face. As it stands, the bill today without amendment, very little needs to be face to face. A lot of this could be online, could be on the phone, could be by people abroad. All these sorts of issues start to raise questions on how will these safeguards really work. Panels on the face of the bill, I think are due to be in public, although in debating amendments, we learned that at the request of the applicant, they could be in private.
And going further on amendments, we discovered it was the intention of the bill sponsors that actually it would all be in private. And also, by the way, there could be pre-recordings, it could just be audio and we start to paint, for me, quite a different picture on how the panels or indeed other parts of the process can be done that really check about whether coercion is happening or has happened. Well trained social workers don't just read reports when they go to visit somebody, they're looking at different signals.
And it's those sorts of detail that only by doing amendments and having significant debate, that we started to understand how this might work in practice. A panel being available 24 over seven by the by teams potentially. So these sorts of things only came out as a result of going into detail. Recognising that all the information we've asked for to be released was not released. My Lords advocates expect to become full time job for people discussing artificial intelligence, discussing issues to do with power of attorney.
We didn't get on to the new amendments being proposed by the bill sponsor that basically you could keep going to a different doctor. So you got the answer you wanted. I hope we might still reach it. Probably not. Not this time. But being able to check or against potential coercion, that is what has worried people concerned about this bill the most, and that includes people who strongly support the principle. I do fear that many peers and many MPs are putting choice for some ahead of concern on coercion for others.
And just like happened in the Scottish Parliament, the more scrutiny this Bill has got, the more concerns people have had. That's why I was encouraged by very recent polling of the public that show that people want a safe bill and want the Lords to do their job. Just saying it so it is safe repeatedly is not enough. Now I'm a Democrat. I used to be an MP. I lost, I'm here and it is the choice of the Commons that if they decide to try and Parliament act, this bill, that is their absolute privilege and I respect that.
But what I do hope actually, is that they look at the issues that have been raised in this House, look carefully at what has gone through, not only in the Commons but here. And what are the unanswered questions and whether that bill, the Bill before us still today, is the right bill to achieve the ends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that they wish? Yes, of course. The noble Baroness will be aware, and I'm sure she will agree, that and I'm sure she will agree, that if the Bill comes back a second time to the Commons, it will come back here, and the effect of the back here, and the effect of the Parliament Act is not to stop further debate, but simply to prevent the House from blocking the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prevent the House from blocking the Bill and not returning it to the Lords. The Commons. Yes, I completely do. And that's why I say I respect if the MPs decide that they want to effectively use the Parliament Act process. That is their right, of course, but I would rather that we don't have to go through this whole again of then having to change the bill at this end. On what's been a flawed bill, and I appreciate I'm aware of the parliamentary process, but can I just say I completely understand the passions for people who want assisted dying to happen in this country.
A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or others as being a choice, as being a criteria. OK. Autonomy, as I say, versus the risk of coercion. But I do think that they should come up with a better bill. Now, my Lords, I'm very conscious. I've spoken for somewhat longer than I'd intended to. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two houses are different in their processes. Could have given examples of popular PMS.
One in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons, and then never made it through this House. But unconscious. Others do want to speak, and for what it's worth, I do actually want us to go into committee at some point today. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The original question was that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the itself into a committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been moved to set out on the Order Paper and a further amendment has Paper and a further amendment has been moved to that amendment. The question I therefore have to put is that Baroness Coffey amendment to that Baroness Coffey amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Falconer of Thoroton be agreed to.
My Lords, Baroness Campbell of My Lords, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed. She will be called as the third noble Lord to speak in the debate on this amendment.
10:39
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Markham (Conservative)
I assume that doesn't mean now. Does it mean now? No, no, no. The third. OK, fine. So, my Lords, I want to begin personally, as I've mentioned in this debate, my mother was a married nurse supporting terminally ill people through their final days. In 2007, she was staged. She was diagnosed with late stage womb cancer when she was in pain. At the end of her life, she was helped by hospice staff, in my own words, to take an earlier train home.
That experience changed how I see the debate. I considered myself broadly in favour of assisted dying because I believe in choice, in personal autonomy. But what I witnessed and what I've learned since, is what has happened to my mother happens quietly all the time across the across the country, informally and inconsistently, with no upfront oversight, no safeguards. The current ban does not prevent assisted dying. It simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe. It forces some people to travel to Dignitas, often alone, dying earlier than they need to, because the law has given them no other way.
It leaves their relatives looking over their shoulders, concerned that they might face prosecution for helping them. Their loved ones have their dying wish. It forces others to take their own lives frightened and alone, or perhaps with assistance, but with no way to protect against abuse. We heard evidence in the select committee that 650 650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year with no controls, no safeguards and no protections. Under the current legislation, others without the ability or resources to take control, risk dying terribly or without dignity, in pain and with suffering.
So I came to this bill believing in the principle of assisted dying to allow choice and autonomy, but believing that it needed the skills of this Lordships House to make the assisted dying the best, the safest process in the world. So I was in favour of setting up the special committee to take evidence. I even sat on it. I was in favour of giving the bill extra time to allow additional scrutiny. It was fitting that we had a similar number of sittings on this bill as the current Crime and Policing Bill, but as Lord Falconer set out, this bill has had plenty of time compared to other bills.
It has just not chosen to use that time wisely. It has taken 20 times longer, 20 times more per page of legislation than other bills such as the Crime and Policing Bill, such as the welfare, Health and Security Bill. The Levelling Up bill, 20 times longer. So I believe it's had plenty of time for scrutiny. And as I say, we just have not chosen to use that time wisely. And I believe the whole bill and the reputation of Lords is the poorer for it.
I know that many Lords will say that Lord Faulks has not been responsive to suggested amendments. He has pointed out of the many examples where he has. But for me, the failure for us to get through to the end of this process and to discuss all the clauses of the Bill, has made. It made us all the poorer. Please let me give me. Give an example. In an earlier clause, Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest spoke eloquently and movingly about the dangers of people with learning disabilities being inadvertently coerced into assisted dying through them, wanting to crowd police.
The whole house was moved and educated that day by Baroness Monckton, and Lord Faulks immediately, immediately agreed to make the necessary amendments to safeguard this. This was the Lords at its best into the detail and understanding the full consequences, and then acting to protect. So to me, the real missed opportunity here is that we. By spending so much time on the early clauses and not getting through the bill, it did not have the benefit of this House's wisdom, experience and expertise to go through and make the points and understand it in the very, very clear way that Baroness Monckton did that day and the way that Lord Faulkner reacted.
So that's my true regret to this, and my true regret that we let down 70% of the British population who support assisted dying. He saw the House of Commons pass the Bill and don't understand how the Lords can block it without even a vote. But most of all, I'm sorry to those people who are currently terminally ill, for whom the assisted dying bill held out a safe, humane and pain free death of their own choosing. And so I would like to finish up by remembering some of those people who passed away during the passage of this bill, for whom we are too late.
Anthony Shackleton was aged 59 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He battled for six years and travelled in the end to Dignitas. In December 24th, he said to his wife Louise, look at my options. I could go there and die peacefully with grace, without pain or be laid to bed, laid to rest in her bed, not even able to move my house, my to see anything unless someone moved my head. He spent his final four days laughing and in his wife's words, in total peace with his decision for accompanying her husband so he could die with dignity.
Louise spent ten months under police investigation. What he wanted, as he put it, was nothing more than a good death. Kate Bilderbeck was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in 2022 and died in 2025. A nurse for more than 20 years at Great Ormond Street, her. Her daughter Poppy, watched her struggle each year to try and blow out the candle. I was forced to watch my only parent lie, barely conscious, waking only to cry out in agony, denying people autonomy at the end of life benefits no one.
My mum's birthday wish was to die. MHRA, aged 42, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and experienced rapid deterioration over two years before passing away in July 25th. A mother of two, she spent her life protecting victims of domestic abuse, the only legal control she could exercise at the end of her death was to stop eating and drinking. She knew exactly what that meant. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not an easy death, but with the current law in English in England, this is the only way I have control, she said.
I want to protect my children from seeing me choke and struggle to breathe. She wanted to die surrounded by loved ones, music and laughter. She deserved better than starving to death being her only option. And finally, Nathan Nathaniel died aged 40, who was known by many of us here as a fearless campaigner who, as I say, many of us had the the privilege to meet and understand what a force of nature he truly was. He wanted to know the option was there.
His family said that he would found so much comfort and reassurance had he known it was available in this case, and need that reassurance alone. The mere knowledge that they can choose to die peacefully matters enormously to the dying. There are many, many, many more people I could mention. My Lords, the current law does not protect people. It abandons them often to die in pain, sometimes to die without dignity, sometimes to die alone in a foreign country, or relying on the quiet, unregulated compassion of those around them.
My mother was fortunate. Many are not these people nurses, teachers, parents, magistrates deserved better. So do thousands of people like them who face the same choice or the absence of one. This year and every year that follows, our colleagues in the other place raise the hopes of the nation. Last year by passing this bill. And I'm sorry that we've let d pledge, I speak for many, many of our colleagues here is that we will try, we will try, and we will try again to bring this bill back as soon as possible in the next session to do what is right, democratically and most importantly of all, to give those people who are terminally ill hope and choice of a better way to die.
That experience changed how I see the debate. I considered myself broadly in favour of assisted dying because I believe in choice, in personal autonomy. But what I witnessed and what I've learned since, is what has happened to my mother happens quietly all the time across the across the country, informally and inconsistently, with no upfront oversight, no safeguards. The current ban does not prevent assisted dying. It simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe. It forces some people to travel to Dignitas, often alone, dying earlier than they need to, because the law has given them no other way.
It leaves their relatives looking over their shoulders, concerned that they might face prosecution for helping them. Their loved ones have their dying wish. It forces others to take their own lives frightened and alone, or perhaps with assistance, but with no way to protect against abuse. We heard evidence in the select committee that 650 650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year with no controls, no safeguards and no protections. Under the current legislation, others without the ability or resources to take control, risk dying terribly or without dignity, in pain and with suffering.
So I came to this bill believing in the principle of assisted dying to allow choice and autonomy, but believing that it needed the skills of this Lordships House to make the assisted dying the best, the safest process in the world. So I was in favour of setting up the special committee to take evidence. I even sat on it. I was in favour of giving the bill extra time to allow additional scrutiny. It was fitting that we had a similar number of sittings on this bill as the current Crime and Policing Bill, but as Lord Falconer set out, this bill has had plenty of time compared to other bills.
It has just not chosen to use that time wisely. It has taken 20 times longer, 20 times more per page of legislation than other bills such as the Crime and Policing Bill, such as the welfare, Health and Security Bill. The Levelling Up bill, 20 times longer. So I believe it's had plenty of time for scrutiny. And as I say, we just have not chosen to use that time wisely. And I believe the whole bill and the reputation of Lords is the poorer for it.
I know that many Lords will say that Lord Faulks has not been responsive to suggested amendments. He has pointed out of the many examples where he has. But for me, the failure for us to get through to the end of this process and to discuss all the clauses of the Bill, has made. It made us all the poorer. Please let me give me. Give an example. In an earlier clause, Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest spoke eloquently and movingly about the dangers of people with learning disabilities being inadvertently coerced into assisted dying through them, wanting to crowd police.
The whole house was moved and educated that day by Baroness Monckton, and Lord Faulks immediately, immediately agreed to make the necessary amendments to safeguard this. This was the Lords at its best into the detail and understanding the full consequences, and then acting to protect. So to me, the real missed opportunity here is that we. By spending so much time on the early clauses and not getting through the bill, it did not have the benefit of this House's wisdom, experience and expertise to go through and make the points and understand it in the very, very clear way that Baroness Monckton did that day and the way that Lord Faulkner reacted.
So that's my true regret to this, and my true regret that we let down 70% of the British population who support assisted dying. He saw the House of Commons pass the Bill and don't understand how the Lords can block it without even a vote. But most of all, I'm sorry to those people who are currently terminally ill, for whom the assisted dying bill held out a safe, humane and pain free death of their own choosing. And so I would like to finish up by remembering some of those people who passed away during the passage of this bill, for whom we are too late.
Anthony Shackleton was aged 59 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He battled for six years and travelled in the end to Dignitas. In December 24th, he said to his wife Louise, look at my options. I could go there and die peacefully with grace, without pain or be laid to bed, laid to rest in her bed, not even able to move my house, my to see anything unless someone moved my head. He spent his final four days laughing and in his wife's words, in total peace with his decision for accompanying her husband so he could die with dignity.
Louise spent ten months under police investigation. What he wanted, as he put it, was nothing more than a good death. Kate Bilderbeck was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in 2022 and died in 2025. A nurse for more than 20 years at Great Ormond Street, her. Her daughter Poppy, watched her struggle each year to try and blow out the candle. I was forced to watch my only parent lie, barely conscious, waking only to cry out in agony, denying people autonomy at the end of life benefits no one.
My mum's birthday wish was to die. MHRA, aged 42, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and experienced rapid deterioration over two years before passing away in July 25th. A mother of two, she spent her life protecting victims of domestic abuse, the only legal control she could exercise at the end of her death was to stop eating and drinking. She knew exactly what that meant. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not an easy death, but with the current law in English in England, this is the only way I have control, she said.
I want to protect my children from seeing me choke and struggle to breathe. She wanted to die surrounded by loved ones, music and laughter. She deserved better than starving to death being her only option. And finally, Nathan Nathaniel died aged 40, who was known by many of us here as a fearless campaigner who, as I say, many of us had the the privilege to meet and understand what a force of nature he truly was. He wanted to know the option was there.
His family said that he would found so much comfort and reassurance had he known it was available in this case, and need that reassurance alone. The mere knowledge that they can choose to die peacefully matters enormously to the dying. There are many, many, many more people I could mention. My Lords, the current law does not protect people. It abandons them often to die in pain, sometimes to die without dignity, sometimes to die alone in a foreign country, or relying on the quiet, unregulated compassion of those around them.
My mother was fortunate. Many are not these people nurses, teachers, parents, magistrates deserved better. So do thousands of people like them who face the same choice or the absence of one. This year and every year that follows, our colleagues in the other place raise the hopes of the nation. Last year by passing this bill. And I'm sorry that we've let d pledge, I speak for many, many of our colleagues here is that we will try, we will try, and we will try again to bring this bill back as soon as possible in the next session to do what is right, democratically and most importantly of all, to give those people who are terminally ill hope and choice of a better way to die.
10:48
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
My Lords, I rise as one of the Lords spiritual and as a member of the Select Committee which examined this bill, I do so with a deep this bill, I do so with a deep sense of responsibility for the integrity of our legislative process, and for the dignity and protection of those whose lives may be most directly affected by what we decide. I have been deeply moved by the personal stories that have been shared by noble Lords in recent months, and wish to acknowledge my noble friend's stories that he shared with us just now.
My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could, at many stages, have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me. In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail, it is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one which is grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint grounded in faith, belief or none.
Whilst my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that the more closely we have examined this bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our own proceedings. There has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form.
When such admissions are made, it is incumbent upon us to listen with care. The Select committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled, whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if, in doing so, the person's mind might be changed. How we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill. How such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk.
How this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners? These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility. Across this House, peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern that breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly. Yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject before us.
When the bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that noble Lords have already pointed out rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains whether too much is being left unresolved to be determined later rather than clarified now, there must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and indeed the House more broadly, has raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the government or its advisers.
That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required. My Lords, in my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together, that care must be marked by compassion, by clarity, and by a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully, and until this bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward.
This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just humane and worthy of the trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is placed in us. Lords. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton is taking part remotely. I Surbiton is taking part remotely. I invite for no less to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite for no less to speak. My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the terminally ill have made on the terminally ill Adults End of Life Bill to date. I know we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although the supporters of the Bill. It does seem agonisingly slow, I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubberstamp legislation.
It demands that we draw upon our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist insist firmly that a bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is, our constitutional duty, and it is what we have been doing over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
past 14 weeks in committee on this bill. Yet our work has been dismissed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. My Lords, as filibustering or worse. My Lords, that is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability
My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could, at many stages, have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me. In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail, it is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one which is grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint grounded in faith, belief or none.
Whilst my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that the more closely we have examined this bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our own proceedings. There has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form.
When such admissions are made, it is incumbent upon us to listen with care. The Select committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled, whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if, in doing so, the person's mind might be changed. How we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill. How such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk.
How this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners? These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility. Across this House, peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern that breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly. Yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject before us.
When the bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that noble Lords have already pointed out rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains whether too much is being left unresolved to be determined later rather than clarified now, there must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and indeed the House more broadly, has raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the government or its advisers.
That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required. My Lords, in my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together, that care must be marked by compassion, by clarity, and by a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully, and until this bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward.
This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just humane and worthy of the trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is placed in us. Lords. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton is taking part remotely. I Surbiton is taking part remotely. I invite for no less to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite for no less to speak. My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the terminally ill have made on the terminally ill Adults End of Life Bill to date. I know we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although the supporters of the Bill. It does seem agonisingly slow, I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubberstamp legislation.
It demands that we draw upon our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist insist firmly that a bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is, our constitutional duty, and it is what we have been doing over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
past 14 weeks in committee on this bill. Yet our work has been dismissed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. My Lords, as filibustering or worse. My Lords, that is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability
10:55
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (Crossbench)
organisations about the risks this particular legislation may pose to particular legislation may pose to the most vulnerable. I have spent over two decades studying similar over two decades studying similar laws internationally. I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom, it is risk. And when the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Public opinion is given to reflect that caution. Despite the high profile celebrities fronting their campaign for assisted dying, of course they get the headlines.
Actor Miriam Margulies's recent outburst against, and I quote, a cohort of rabid Catholic privilege Lords out to sabotage the bill was heard loud and clear. But please don't be mistaken this is not a reflection of public opinion. The latest polling by Waterhouse Insight Agency shows there is no clear or informed public mandate for this bill. Around 4 in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs. When voters are better informed, support falls away.
Nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focussed on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believes the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job without significant amendment. This bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or those outside its intended scope, nor can it ensure that decisions are entirely are made entirely free from pressure.
These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPS. Where is it? The Equality Commission? Sorry, but you've lost me here. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations, even liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this bill. They warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected.
As they put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This bill fails that test. I also struggle to understand why the bill's sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed his open door policy to engage with our concerns, and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent in intensive care consultants from Saint Thomas's Hospital to meet with him.
They provided a clear tutorial on prognostication for the noble and learned Lord. They demonstrated a six month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the bill? No. Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this chamber focuses on motives. It should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear.
This particular bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care, shaping their choices. They fear subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected. They fear error in prognosis. They fear persistent assumptions about the value of their lives, and they fear a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments which have sought to strengthen safeguards.
To that end, that is not obstruction. It is our duty. After 14 weeks, it is clear more work is needed before this legislation can be considered safe. My Lords, I am here to help prevent harm, particularly to those least heard. That is why I will continue
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to press for stronger safeguards. If this Bill is to proceed, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this Bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrates that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve. At present, is intended to serve. At present, it does not meet this test. My Lords, that is where careful scrutiny was brought us so far. In the absence of actual amendments, we are now. We now have a better understanding of the risks and the changes we need to make.
When or if a similar bill returns to this House. That, my Lord, is progress. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I rise to express my agreement with the noble and learned Lord Foulkes concern that the Committee stage of concern that the Committee stage of this bill should have been completed. I want it to be part of completed. I want it to be part of a process which amended this bill so we could reach Report stage and have some meaningful votes on
Actor Miriam Margulies's recent outburst against, and I quote, a cohort of rabid Catholic privilege Lords out to sabotage the bill was heard loud and clear. But please don't be mistaken this is not a reflection of public opinion. The latest polling by Waterhouse Insight Agency shows there is no clear or informed public mandate for this bill. Around 4 in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs. When voters are better informed, support falls away.
Nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focussed on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believes the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job without significant amendment. This bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or those outside its intended scope, nor can it ensure that decisions are entirely are made entirely free from pressure.
These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPS. Where is it? The Equality Commission? Sorry, but you've lost me here. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations, even liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this bill. They warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected.
As they put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This bill fails that test. I also struggle to understand why the bill's sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed his open door policy to engage with our concerns, and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent in intensive care consultants from Saint Thomas's Hospital to meet with him.
They provided a clear tutorial on prognostication for the noble and learned Lord. They demonstrated a six month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the bill? No. Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this chamber focuses on motives. It should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear.
This particular bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care, shaping their choices. They fear subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected. They fear error in prognosis. They fear persistent assumptions about the value of their lives, and they fear a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments which have sought to strengthen safeguards.
To that end, that is not obstruction. It is our duty. After 14 weeks, it is clear more work is needed before this legislation can be considered safe. My Lords, I am here to help prevent harm, particularly to those least heard. That is why I will continue
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to press for stronger safeguards. If this Bill is to proceed, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this Bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrates that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve. At present, is intended to serve. At present, it does not meet this test. My Lords, that is where careful scrutiny was brought us so far. In the absence of actual amendments, we are now. We now have a better understanding of the risks and the changes we need to make.
When or if a similar bill returns to this House. That, my Lord, is progress. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I rise to express my agreement with the noble and learned Lord Foulkes concern that the Committee stage of concern that the Committee stage of this bill should have been completed. I want it to be part of completed. I want it to be part of a process which amended this bill so we could reach Report stage and have some meaningful votes on
11:02
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
have some meaningful votes on certain parts of this bill, with which I disagree profoundly. And I want to thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement of my part. In some discussions we had, to which I refer in a moment. I also wanted to say, My Lords, what a singular privilege it is to speak shortly after the noble Lord Lord Markham, who made a moving, personal and brave speech. I think what he illustrated is that when we debate difficult issues like this, we should, as members of the House of Lords, be seeking to embrace an agreement in the final analysis, not raise our fists in disagreement.
And we really should have reached a conclusion of this process. It does raise some questions, which I hope the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip will take into account of the suitability of Committee stage in your Lordships House for private members bills of this general kind. Conscience issues, major conscience, conscience issues coming from the House of Commons. The noble Lord noble and learned Lord, in the technical language of this House, is not my noble friend, but he is my learned friend of many decades.
And I can say to your Lordships that that phrase, my learned friend, which I have about many others in this House, is a bond of friendship. However, we disagree and we have all been trying. I think, though a number of the lawyers here have disagreed about issues, to find a consensus for this bill. Of course, my noble friend Lord Falconer, if a noble Lord, Lord Falconer, if you allow me to tease him slightly, has shown in this House his barrister's skills and the skills that made him such a distinguished Lord Chancellor, his powers of preparation, his knowledge of the law, his facility with competing conceptual issues.
He's a fine advocate, but I'm going to let you into a trade secret, my Lords, for there are dangers of brilliance among advocates. It's a fact that the very best advocates are the ones who lose the most cases, because they are given the most difficult cases to argue. And I fear this has been an example, and it would be perhaps unkind to say of the noble Lord that he's demonstrated his powers to make a silk or silk purse out of a sow's ear.
But this bill has many imperfections, not least, those imperfections are in its failure to safeguard the most vulnerable. Now, I absolutely agree that the noble Lord has made some concessions, and he's mentioned them, and some of them are important concessions. But he did mention very kindly the attempt that he and I had made, as I thought it together, to try and bring back, as was in the original version of this bill, when it started its course in the House of Commons, that the ultimate governance of the process of assisted suicide.
Assisted dying should be with the courts rather than with the largely unaccountable panels, which are set up under an untested system which was introduced in the House of Commons by amendments. I think the promoters of this Bill made a serious mistake doing that. A former Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Burnett, was made a Knight of the Garter this week. There's a reason why we have such confidence in senior judges, because they are able to ensure ultimate governance of the laws passed by these Houses of Parliament.
I was disappointed and I was surprised that the noble and Lord Burnett Lord did not disagree, did not agree to a process was which was available for us to meet with officials and parliamentary draughtsman to try and produce an acceptable and mutually agreeable version of my amendment 150, which was debated on the first day of this Committee stage and would have introduced ultimate governance by the courts. I heard him say this morning that we could have achieved that at Report stage.
Perhaps we had, but he did not take the advantage of trying to go through that process when it was available during the course of Committee stage. And I believe, my Lords, that if we had reached an agreement and there was a formula available which we talked about, if we had reached agreement, we might have shortened quite a lot of the debate in your Lordships House on this bill. I also would say, as kindly as I can to the Noble and learned, Lord, that I think it's rather hyperbolic to allege that this bill has illegitimately been delayed by this House.
Yes, it has been delayed by this House, but the question is as to the legitimacy of that delay. We heard earlier from the noble Lady who moved the amendment, and I would remind the noble and learned Lord, that much of the opposition has not come from old Fogeys like me. I'm now a veteran of this House. I've been here 26 years after 14. In the other place, much of the opposition has come from a group of. They. They'll forgive me. Newbies to this House, but not newbies to Parliament, noble Lords and ladies who were Cabinet Ministers in very recent time, and who have the spirit and intent of the House of Commons very much in their minds, in the work they do in the House of Lords, and we are, in general terms, very grateful for having them here.
But what they were doing was not coming here as newbies to obstruct that house, of which they'd been members for many years, even if they lost their seats, which I didn't, by the way. But I think they came here to do exactly what it says on the tin, as it were, to amend draft legislation. So it's fit for purpose and to try and do so, as I stated earlier, by agreement, not by disagreement. So although I do wish that they had at times been quicker and had put down fewer amendments, they have been doing what we are here for to make draft legislation fit for purpose.
If there is a further bill, we should, as a House, be less obdurate, and the noble and learned Lord, who ever is the sponsor of the Bill, should be less obdurate. We should have a stronger critical faculty, and we should have an ambition to complete the process of the House. And my final words are just to remind your Lordships of what this bill does. This bill is intended to give a citizen the power deliberately to bring about the death of another citizen, something that, since the end of capital punishment has not been available to citizens of this country except in a legitimate war? Let's not forget the importance of what is being asked for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord Lansley Lord Lansley. Lords, I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be brief. My Lords, my Lords. This House has debated assisted dying this century on nine occasions, first in 2003 and then in 2005, and there are very few members in the House today who spoke in those debates. With the
And we really should have reached a conclusion of this process. It does raise some questions, which I hope the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip will take into account of the suitability of Committee stage in your Lordships House for private members bills of this general kind. Conscience issues, major conscience, conscience issues coming from the House of Commons. The noble Lord noble and learned Lord, in the technical language of this House, is not my noble friend, but he is my learned friend of many decades.
And I can say to your Lordships that that phrase, my learned friend, which I have about many others in this House, is a bond of friendship. However, we disagree and we have all been trying. I think, though a number of the lawyers here have disagreed about issues, to find a consensus for this bill. Of course, my noble friend Lord Falconer, if a noble Lord, Lord Falconer, if you allow me to tease him slightly, has shown in this House his barrister's skills and the skills that made him such a distinguished Lord Chancellor, his powers of preparation, his knowledge of the law, his facility with competing conceptual issues.
He's a fine advocate, but I'm going to let you into a trade secret, my Lords, for there are dangers of brilliance among advocates. It's a fact that the very best advocates are the ones who lose the most cases, because they are given the most difficult cases to argue. And I fear this has been an example, and it would be perhaps unkind to say of the noble Lord that he's demonstrated his powers to make a silk or silk purse out of a sow's ear.
But this bill has many imperfections, not least, those imperfections are in its failure to safeguard the most vulnerable. Now, I absolutely agree that the noble Lord has made some concessions, and he's mentioned them, and some of them are important concessions. But he did mention very kindly the attempt that he and I had made, as I thought it together, to try and bring back, as was in the original version of this bill, when it started its course in the House of Commons, that the ultimate governance of the process of assisted suicide.
Assisted dying should be with the courts rather than with the largely unaccountable panels, which are set up under an untested system which was introduced in the House of Commons by amendments. I think the promoters of this Bill made a serious mistake doing that. A former Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Burnett, was made a Knight of the Garter this week. There's a reason why we have such confidence in senior judges, because they are able to ensure ultimate governance of the laws passed by these Houses of Parliament.
I was disappointed and I was surprised that the noble and Lord Burnett Lord did not disagree, did not agree to a process was which was available for us to meet with officials and parliamentary draughtsman to try and produce an acceptable and mutually agreeable version of my amendment 150, which was debated on the first day of this Committee stage and would have introduced ultimate governance by the courts. I heard him say this morning that we could have achieved that at Report stage.
Perhaps we had, but he did not take the advantage of trying to go through that process when it was available during the course of Committee stage. And I believe, my Lords, that if we had reached an agreement and there was a formula available which we talked about, if we had reached agreement, we might have shortened quite a lot of the debate in your Lordships House on this bill. I also would say, as kindly as I can to the Noble and learned, Lord, that I think it's rather hyperbolic to allege that this bill has illegitimately been delayed by this House.
Yes, it has been delayed by this House, but the question is as to the legitimacy of that delay. We heard earlier from the noble Lady who moved the amendment, and I would remind the noble and learned Lord, that much of the opposition has not come from old Fogeys like me. I'm now a veteran of this House. I've been here 26 years after 14. In the other place, much of the opposition has come from a group of. They. They'll forgive me. Newbies to this House, but not newbies to Parliament, noble Lords and ladies who were Cabinet Ministers in very recent time, and who have the spirit and intent of the House of Commons very much in their minds, in the work they do in the House of Lords, and we are, in general terms, very grateful for having them here.
But what they were doing was not coming here as newbies to obstruct that house, of which they'd been members for many years, even if they lost their seats, which I didn't, by the way. But I think they came here to do exactly what it says on the tin, as it were, to amend draft legislation. So it's fit for purpose and to try and do so, as I stated earlier, by agreement, not by disagreement. So although I do wish that they had at times been quicker and had put down fewer amendments, they have been doing what we are here for to make draft legislation fit for purpose.
If there is a further bill, we should, as a House, be less obdurate, and the noble and learned Lord, who ever is the sponsor of the Bill, should be less obdurate. We should have a stronger critical faculty, and we should have an ambition to complete the process of the House. And my final words are just to remind your Lordships of what this bill does. This bill is intended to give a citizen the power deliberately to bring about the death of another citizen, something that, since the end of capital punishment has not been available to citizens of this country except in a legitimate war? Let's not forget the importance of what is being asked for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord Lansley Lord Lansley. Lords, I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be brief. My Lords, my Lords. This House has debated assisted dying this century on nine occasions, first in 2003 and then in 2005, and there are very few members in the House today who spoke in those debates. With the
11:11
Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
possible exception of the Baroness possible exception of the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. She was a very devoted opponent to the bill of those days, just as I was a devoted those days, just as I was a devoted supporter of it. But this is but all those debates were about all those debates were about private bills that originated in this House. What we have now is a bill coming from the House of bill coming from the House of Commons. It is not a government bill, but it did receive a great deal of debate and amendment and improvement, and then it was sent to us.
But we do not exist as a House, my Lords, to frustrate the determined will of the House of Commons. Our task is to examine bills which they don't do themselves in any measured way today, to improve them and to send them back. But this has been frustrated by, in fact, a group of relatively small people, just seven have actually amended nearly over a thousand amendments. And that is a tiny amount that is a tiny minority by any standard, my Lords.
No. And I believe that the prolonged filibuster which they embarked upon is a constitutional farrago. It's a denial of democracy, and it is a return to give to this House the wrecking powers, which were taken away from us in 1912. And I would like to congratulate Lord Falconer for the very patient way he dealt with the very repetitive speeches that he heard that were full of absurd exaggerations and extravagant fantasies. He didn't lose his cool, and that is quite remarkable.
And I'd also like to thank Carlyle, who's just talking to somebody. But I would like to thank Lord Carlile for his very effective contributions to improving the bill. He came forward with several proposals, but he too is frustrated from implementing them at the moment. As a result of us returning the bill to the House of Commons in the way that we received it. I support this bill for two reasons. It will reduce the suffering of many elderly people who are suffering a prolonged death, and nothing was more eloquent than the speech of my noble friend Lord Markham about that.
And we are particularly well suited in the House to debate this sort of measure, because on the whole, we are rather older than most MPs and we have all experienced the deaths of friends and colleagues and relatives. Only this week. One of my closest friends is a cross-bench in this house died. I had tea with him the previous week. Robert Skidelsky. We were very close friends. We lived close to each other. He was a brilliant economist, but he was also a very good bridge player and I shall miss him enormously.
But this. These are. He is one of the lucky ones, as it were. But one of the two reasons why I support this bill is that it does reduce the suffering of people when they slowly begin to lose the control of their own bodies. It's very interesting what the bishop said, because in the in the debates in the past, the main argument was sanctity of life. It's only the bishops that make that argument any longer. No one will make that argument any longer.
What we're concerned is the safeguards and this bill will reduce the suffering of people because we lose slowly, lose the control over our own bodies, and people can't get up and dress themselves and wash themselves and feed themselves, or prepare the food, or walk or run or engage in any life whatsoever. Then they can lose control of their bowels and their bladder. It is a very pleasant, unpleasant way to die. Very, very unpleasant. And I think that you can go to palliative care, you can you can anaesthetise pain, but you cannot anaesthetise in dignity.
And this allows people to die in a very dignified way, in a sensible way, at their own homes. Now, there's another compelling reason why this bill should actually pass, because I did ask for some evidence from the the research people in our library as to how many prosecutions and convictions for aiding a suicide each year have occurred over the last ten years. How many got to court? Well, from 215 2015 to 2025, only ten went to court and there were only two convictions.
I tried to find out what the sentences were for the two convicted, but you can't get that information at all easily. I suspect they were probably suspended sentences. So in fact, the law against suicide for elderly people is not effectively operating in the courts today because every prosecutor will know that when faced with a court hearing where the accused person has killed his wife, or the wife has killed the husband, and they have done it not from greed, not forgetting the bungalow, but for actually love.
And juries will not convict. And so we have a law on the statute book which is not being effectively operated. And the police have really disengaged, in fact, from promoting such cases. This is the evidence again, I got from the library from April 1329 to March 25th, 199 cases were referred to the public prosecutor by the police for assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord Lord Baker, but I am sure he would want the House to be aware that the Attorney General's guidelines has assisted General's guidelines has assisted in enabling prosecutors to make decisions which would obviate the decisions which would obviate the need for prosecution, where there is no evidence that the person assisting did it other than by love. So the fact that there is so there are so few prosecutions is something we should celebrate as opposed to criticise, because those ten that go forward are because there is evidence that that which was done was not well done and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be prosecuted. Are you. Saying that the police
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you. Saying that the police have decided very clearly what the position is, because since 2009 and position is, because since 2009 and 25, 199 cases were referred to the director of Public prosecution by the police, that the court physician assisted suicide. Of physician assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131 were not proceeded with by the Director of Public Prosecutions and were withdrawn, and the police then withdrew 39 of the cases. So this is not a law that is operating today because juries will not convict.
And my Lord, I would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't want to interrupt him, the noble Lord, again, but I think it's right for him to know that this matter came before the this matter came before the Attorney General myself to determine how we should address this problem. How could we make it better? How could we differentiate between those who should validly be between those who should validly be prosecuted and those who should not? And the Director of Public prosecution then has a duty to implement the Attorney General's guidelines when making a decision as to whether or not to prosecute, and they have duly done so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. Recognise there is that power, but it is very rarely used. That's the point I'm making all the time. Geordies will not convict now. This has happened before in our history, has happened before in our history, my Lords. There was a time when the law decided that youngsters, as well as 10 or 12, could be hanged well as 10 or 12, could be hanged for stealing a pocket handkerchief, but that fell away because juries but that fell away because juries would not convict.
And similarly, I do not believe that, in fact, the present law on suicide can in fact operate effectively and therefore it should be changed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I reflect on the debate. I. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep going. My Lords. I've spoken only once previously in the many long hours of debate on this bill that was at of debate on this bill that was at Second Reading when I told the story of Daniel, the much loved son story of Daniel, the much loved son of the noble Lord Monks, who, in the absence of any form of assisted dying in this country and faced with intolerable suffering, starved himself to death in 2024, like many others around our country, I had strong hopes that this bill would have given.
For the first time, people very close to the end of their life some choice on how to leave this world while remaining silent in the chamber, it quickly became very clear to me that an additional voice was certainly not needed. I've been distressed and disturbed by what I've witnessed here. As I was coming into this place a little over a year ago now, I was given to understand that we had two central responsibilities. Our job was not to seek to displace or overturn the elected house, but to act as a scrutinising and revising chamber.
So how well have we carried out those responsibilities? As the noble Lord Faulkner reminded us, this is the bill of 59 clauses in committee. After 120 hours of debate, we've managed to scrutinise only seven of those clauses. The rest of the Bill 52 clauses has received no scrutiny whatsoever. And as to our responsibility to propose revisions for the elected House to consider. Well, there have been a handful of entirely non-contentious matters where revisions have been made during Committee stage.
But of course, substantive revisions would fall to be considered and voted on at Report stage, and we have never come even close to reaching that point. So in sum, we have abjectly failed in our responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising chamber. It became apparent very early on during Committee stage that the rate of progress was utterly glacial. The noble Lord Faulkner proposed a motion to the House seeking additional time, if necessary, and committing the House to completing consideration of the bill in good order to return it to the Commons.
Nobody voted against it, but also nobody changed the form or the length of their contributions to these debates, even by a tiny amount, to make it objective, achievable and all efforts by the noble Lord Faulkner, as he reminded us to establish more streamlined processes, came to nought. Now there's been a catch all justification that we've heard again today, offered by some of the bill's opponents, that it has always been, and I quote, a bad bill in need of fundamental root and branch reworking from top to bottom as a result of insufficient earlier work and detailed scrutiny.
I reject that view, and I regard it as deeply disrespectful and insulting slur on the sponsors of the bill and all those highly expert advisers who have supported
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the sponsors at every stage of the bill's preparation. Yes. I also think it rather ignores
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also think it rather ignores the very detailed consideration the bill received in the elected bill received in the elected chamber, in many cases, with hon. Members. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Members. I. With, with great. With great, with great respect,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With great, with great respect, I'd like to conclude my remarks. In the elected chamber with many cases of hon. Members weighing their positions after close consultation with deeply interested constituents, noble Lords may disagree with the Bill and oppose its objectives, but please don't claim that there is some grave technical deficiency in it to justify that position. Now, I've used throughout these remarks the word we in describing the House's handling of this bill. But this is not about the House as a whole, because what has become abundantly clear to me, and I suspect to many people in the wider community, is how a relatively small number of people in this place have been able to use its procedures not to scrutinise or revise a bill supported by the elected House, but simply to seek to block it.
In my younger days, I attended a number of lively demonstrations led by the chant kill the Bill. Well, the message and intent of some colleagues may have been less brutally expressed in this House, but the objective has been clear. Many noble Lords have had grave reservations on particular points in the Bill, but have seen it as their duty to seek what they consider would be improvements. They, too, have been thwarted by the actions of those determined to block its passage.
Indeed, the whole House has been denied any meaningful opportunity to express their view on the bill as a whole, and what it was seeking to achieve. Now. This may now prompt a wider debate about the role of this House, the privileges it confers on noble Lords, and whether its procedures are justifiable when they can be used so blatantly to overturn the expressed will of the elected chamber. Now, I recognise that many noble Lords have genuine, deeply felt objections to this Bill, perhaps as a result of their faith or just a strong personal conviction that this bill can never build in enough safeguards to satisfy their conscience.
I recognise and respect that. But is it right on that basis to use the privileged position this this House gives to each of us to impose that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
personal view on the membership of the House as a whole? I think not. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Now, that is a matter of interest to those of us concerned with constitutional issues in our with constitutional issues in our democracy and institutions, though I have to say I would not run a I have to say I would not run a local trade union branch meeting with a difficult decision to make with a difficult decision to make in this self-regulated way that so many Lords take great pride in. But as we lay this bill to rest and pronounce the last rites over it, at least for now, I think, first of all, of those ordinary, decent people, perhaps with deeply loved ones in circumstances such as those that faced Daniel yearning to see this change enacted, they will be bewildered and outraged to understand how it has founded in this place, on this matter.
The House has not served our nation well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done. Great. And. Or an opportunity to reflect on this debate. I think actually it's around it's actually it's around it's approaching 250 members who've spoken in the debate, not the spoken in the debate, not the minority that have been spoken about. I remind the House that I was I'm a past president of the was I'm a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a fellow of three other royal colleges. And when my husband was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, he read that motor neurone disease is the most feared illness.
He took a different view. He joked that he was just fading away. He had good care. I wish everybody did. He died naturally and peacefully at home with a smile on his face. My Lords, fear is infectious. Please let's not feed on fear. The bill's aim was to provide patients with choice at the end of their lives, but for this to be meaningful, it needs to be a meaningful choice, a real choice. And I've introduced amendments to try to address the other side of choice the lack of palliative care and the gaps in services that underlie so many of the distressing stories that we've heard.
The lack of clarity about the actual means by which someone would be assisted to end their own life, and the risk of implicit institutional coercion when new processes and procedures change the culture in the NHS. Let me give you
But we do not exist as a House, my Lords, to frustrate the determined will of the House of Commons. Our task is to examine bills which they don't do themselves in any measured way today, to improve them and to send them back. But this has been frustrated by, in fact, a group of relatively small people, just seven have actually amended nearly over a thousand amendments. And that is a tiny amount that is a tiny minority by any standard, my Lords.
No. And I believe that the prolonged filibuster which they embarked upon is a constitutional farrago. It's a denial of democracy, and it is a return to give to this House the wrecking powers, which were taken away from us in 1912. And I would like to congratulate Lord Falconer for the very patient way he dealt with the very repetitive speeches that he heard that were full of absurd exaggerations and extravagant fantasies. He didn't lose his cool, and that is quite remarkable.
And I'd also like to thank Carlyle, who's just talking to somebody. But I would like to thank Lord Carlile for his very effective contributions to improving the bill. He came forward with several proposals, but he too is frustrated from implementing them at the moment. As a result of us returning the bill to the House of Commons in the way that we received it. I support this bill for two reasons. It will reduce the suffering of many elderly people who are suffering a prolonged death, and nothing was more eloquent than the speech of my noble friend Lord Markham about that.
And we are particularly well suited in the House to debate this sort of measure, because on the whole, we are rather older than most MPs and we have all experienced the deaths of friends and colleagues and relatives. Only this week. One of my closest friends is a cross-bench in this house died. I had tea with him the previous week. Robert Skidelsky. We were very close friends. We lived close to each other. He was a brilliant economist, but he was also a very good bridge player and I shall miss him enormously.
But this. These are. He is one of the lucky ones, as it were. But one of the two reasons why I support this bill is that it does reduce the suffering of people when they slowly begin to lose the control of their own bodies. It's very interesting what the bishop said, because in the in the debates in the past, the main argument was sanctity of life. It's only the bishops that make that argument any longer. No one will make that argument any longer.
What we're concerned is the safeguards and this bill will reduce the suffering of people because we lose slowly, lose the control over our own bodies, and people can't get up and dress themselves and wash themselves and feed themselves, or prepare the food, or walk or run or engage in any life whatsoever. Then they can lose control of their bowels and their bladder. It is a very pleasant, unpleasant way to die. Very, very unpleasant. And I think that you can go to palliative care, you can you can anaesthetise pain, but you cannot anaesthetise in dignity.
And this allows people to die in a very dignified way, in a sensible way, at their own homes. Now, there's another compelling reason why this bill should actually pass, because I did ask for some evidence from the the research people in our library as to how many prosecutions and convictions for aiding a suicide each year have occurred over the last ten years. How many got to court? Well, from 215 2015 to 2025, only ten went to court and there were only two convictions.
I tried to find out what the sentences were for the two convicted, but you can't get that information at all easily. I suspect they were probably suspended sentences. So in fact, the law against suicide for elderly people is not effectively operating in the courts today because every prosecutor will know that when faced with a court hearing where the accused person has killed his wife, or the wife has killed the husband, and they have done it not from greed, not forgetting the bungalow, but for actually love.
And juries will not convict. And so we have a law on the statute book which is not being effectively operated. And the police have really disengaged, in fact, from promoting such cases. This is the evidence again, I got from the library from April 1329 to March 25th, 199 cases were referred to the public prosecutor by the police for assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord Lord Baker, but I am sure he would want the House to be aware that the Attorney General's guidelines has assisted General's guidelines has assisted in enabling prosecutors to make decisions which would obviate the decisions which would obviate the need for prosecution, where there is no evidence that the person assisting did it other than by love. So the fact that there is so there are so few prosecutions is something we should celebrate as opposed to criticise, because those ten that go forward are because there is evidence that that which was done was not well done and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be prosecuted. Are you. Saying that the police
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you. Saying that the police have decided very clearly what the position is, because since 2009 and position is, because since 2009 and 25, 199 cases were referred to the director of Public prosecution by the police, that the court physician assisted suicide. Of physician assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131 were not proceeded with by the Director of Public Prosecutions and were withdrawn, and the police then withdrew 39 of the cases. So this is not a law that is operating today because juries will not convict.
And my Lord, I would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't want to interrupt him, the noble Lord, again, but I think it's right for him to know that this matter came before the this matter came before the Attorney General myself to determine how we should address this problem. How could we make it better? How could we differentiate between those who should validly be between those who should validly be prosecuted and those who should not? And the Director of Public prosecution then has a duty to implement the Attorney General's guidelines when making a decision as to whether or not to prosecute, and they have duly done so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. Recognise there is that power, but it is very rarely used. That's the point I'm making all the time. Geordies will not convict now. This has happened before in our history, has happened before in our history, my Lords. There was a time when the law decided that youngsters, as well as 10 or 12, could be hanged well as 10 or 12, could be hanged for stealing a pocket handkerchief, but that fell away because juries but that fell away because juries would not convict.
And similarly, I do not believe that, in fact, the present law on suicide can in fact operate effectively and therefore it should be changed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I reflect on the debate. I. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep going. My Lords. I've spoken only once previously in the many long hours of debate on this bill that was at of debate on this bill that was at Second Reading when I told the story of Daniel, the much loved son story of Daniel, the much loved son of the noble Lord Monks, who, in the absence of any form of assisted dying in this country and faced with intolerable suffering, starved himself to death in 2024, like many others around our country, I had strong hopes that this bill would have given.
For the first time, people very close to the end of their life some choice on how to leave this world while remaining silent in the chamber, it quickly became very clear to me that an additional voice was certainly not needed. I've been distressed and disturbed by what I've witnessed here. As I was coming into this place a little over a year ago now, I was given to understand that we had two central responsibilities. Our job was not to seek to displace or overturn the elected house, but to act as a scrutinising and revising chamber.
So how well have we carried out those responsibilities? As the noble Lord Faulkner reminded us, this is the bill of 59 clauses in committee. After 120 hours of debate, we've managed to scrutinise only seven of those clauses. The rest of the Bill 52 clauses has received no scrutiny whatsoever. And as to our responsibility to propose revisions for the elected House to consider. Well, there have been a handful of entirely non-contentious matters where revisions have been made during Committee stage.
But of course, substantive revisions would fall to be considered and voted on at Report stage, and we have never come even close to reaching that point. So in sum, we have abjectly failed in our responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising chamber. It became apparent very early on during Committee stage that the rate of progress was utterly glacial. The noble Lord Faulkner proposed a motion to the House seeking additional time, if necessary, and committing the House to completing consideration of the bill in good order to return it to the Commons.
Nobody voted against it, but also nobody changed the form or the length of their contributions to these debates, even by a tiny amount, to make it objective, achievable and all efforts by the noble Lord Faulkner, as he reminded us to establish more streamlined processes, came to nought. Now there's been a catch all justification that we've heard again today, offered by some of the bill's opponents, that it has always been, and I quote, a bad bill in need of fundamental root and branch reworking from top to bottom as a result of insufficient earlier work and detailed scrutiny.
I reject that view, and I regard it as deeply disrespectful and insulting slur on the sponsors of the bill and all those highly expert advisers who have supported
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the sponsors at every stage of the bill's preparation. Yes. I also think it rather ignores
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also think it rather ignores the very detailed consideration the bill received in the elected bill received in the elected chamber, in many cases, with hon. Members. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Members. I. With, with great. With great, with great respect,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With great, with great respect, I'd like to conclude my remarks. In the elected chamber with many cases of hon. Members weighing their positions after close consultation with deeply interested constituents, noble Lords may disagree with the Bill and oppose its objectives, but please don't claim that there is some grave technical deficiency in it to justify that position. Now, I've used throughout these remarks the word we in describing the House's handling of this bill. But this is not about the House as a whole, because what has become abundantly clear to me, and I suspect to many people in the wider community, is how a relatively small number of people in this place have been able to use its procedures not to scrutinise or revise a bill supported by the elected House, but simply to seek to block it.
In my younger days, I attended a number of lively demonstrations led by the chant kill the Bill. Well, the message and intent of some colleagues may have been less brutally expressed in this House, but the objective has been clear. Many noble Lords have had grave reservations on particular points in the Bill, but have seen it as their duty to seek what they consider would be improvements. They, too, have been thwarted by the actions of those determined to block its passage.
Indeed, the whole House has been denied any meaningful opportunity to express their view on the bill as a whole, and what it was seeking to achieve. Now. This may now prompt a wider debate about the role of this House, the privileges it confers on noble Lords, and whether its procedures are justifiable when they can be used so blatantly to overturn the expressed will of the elected chamber. Now, I recognise that many noble Lords have genuine, deeply felt objections to this Bill, perhaps as a result of their faith or just a strong personal conviction that this bill can never build in enough safeguards to satisfy their conscience.
I recognise and respect that. But is it right on that basis to use the privileged position this this House gives to each of us to impose that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
personal view on the membership of the House as a whole? I think not. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Now, that is a matter of interest to those of us concerned with constitutional issues in our with constitutional issues in our democracy and institutions, though I have to say I would not run a I have to say I would not run a local trade union branch meeting with a difficult decision to make with a difficult decision to make in this self-regulated way that so many Lords take great pride in. But as we lay this bill to rest and pronounce the last rites over it, at least for now, I think, first of all, of those ordinary, decent people, perhaps with deeply loved ones in circumstances such as those that faced Daniel yearning to see this change enacted, they will be bewildered and outraged to understand how it has founded in this place, on this matter.
The House has not served our nation well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done. Great. And. Or an opportunity to reflect on this debate. I think actually it's around it's actually it's around it's approaching 250 members who've spoken in the debate, not the spoken in the debate, not the minority that have been spoken about. I remind the House that I was I'm a past president of the was I'm a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a fellow of three other royal colleges. And when my husband was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, he read that motor neurone disease is the most feared illness.
He took a different view. He joked that he was just fading away. He had good care. I wish everybody did. He died naturally and peacefully at home with a smile on his face. My Lords, fear is infectious. Please let's not feed on fear. The bill's aim was to provide patients with choice at the end of their lives, but for this to be meaningful, it needs to be a meaningful choice, a real choice. And I've introduced amendments to try to address the other side of choice the lack of palliative care and the gaps in services that underlie so many of the distressing stories that we've heard.
The lack of clarity about the actual means by which someone would be assisted to end their own life, and the risk of implicit institutional coercion when new processes and procedures change the culture in the NHS. Let me give you
11:30
11:30
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
this week, I had an encounter with a neurosurgeon. It was a day that changed mine and my family's lives changed mine and my family's lives forever. The outcome could have been so very different and I don't like to think about that. It was like to think about that. It was about choice at the end of life, but whose choice? The actual choice about whether to live or die was in the hands of the doctor. And let me explain. The doctor's clinical team had been distressed when a judge approved the request of a previous patient with a high level spinal injury, to turn off her life support.
He didn't want to put his team through it again. Just one case of having to turn off a young woman's life. Support had been enough to change his attitude and the culture of care in his team. Now, my unconscious daughter was being ventilated after a major injury, and he was refusing to admit her to intensive care. My daughter's husband was the chief persuader to give her a chance to live, to admit her, to intensive care, to give her a chance to respect the choice of those who knew her best.
And during the conversation that followed, the surgeon was in tears about the situation, and I, the mother of his new patient, was his comforter. He thought that my daughter's life would not be worth living, that she would be so disabled that she would soon ask for her life support to be turned off to. He did admit her. She recovered consciousness. She had a high level spinal injury and would be permanently paralysed and she couldn't talk. We taught her to spell words by opening her eyes letter by letter, as we recited the alphabet to her, and ten days after her injury, she blinked the letters of a poem which gave us hope.
It went like this. Still silent body. But within my spirit sings. Dancing in Love, light. And 21 years later, this is her reflection dictated on her phone. I love my life and I'm so grateful for my family, for fighting for it. I'm grateful to all those clinicians who helped to keep me alive after my injury, believing in the value of my life, especially in those early days when
He didn't want to put his team through it again. Just one case of having to turn off a young woman's life. Support had been enough to change his attitude and the culture of care in his team. Now, my unconscious daughter was being ventilated after a major injury, and he was refusing to admit her to intensive care. My daughter's husband was the chief persuader to give her a chance to live, to admit her, to intensive care, to give her a chance to respect the choice of those who knew her best.
And during the conversation that followed, the surgeon was in tears about the situation, and I, the mother of his new patient, was his comforter. He thought that my daughter's life would not be worth living, that she would be so disabled that she would soon ask for her life support to be turned off to. He did admit her. She recovered consciousness. She had a high level spinal injury and would be permanently paralysed and she couldn't talk. We taught her to spell words by opening her eyes letter by letter, as we recited the alphabet to her, and ten days after her injury, she blinked the letters of a poem which gave us hope.
It went like this. Still silent body. But within my spirit sings. Dancing in Love, light. And 21 years later, this is her reflection dictated on her phone. I love my life and I'm so grateful for my family, for fighting for it. I'm grateful to all those clinicians who helped to keep me alive after my injury, believing in the value of my life, especially in those early days when