Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Bill Amendment Viewer
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Friday 24th April 2026
(began 2 hours ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
10:07
None
-
Copy Link
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
10:09
Legislation: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - committee stage (day 14)
-
Copy Link
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
10:11
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
10:32
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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.
10:39
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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.
10:48
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
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
10:55
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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
11:02
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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
11:11
Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
11:30
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
an example. My Lords, 21 years ago this week, I had an encounter with
11:30
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Feed Live - Click to view video