Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Goodman of Wycombe

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 765, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would delete Clause 42(4). I will briefly read the subsection, as it is not very long:

“Regulations under subsection (3) may make any provision that … could be made by an Act of Parliament, and … would not be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd”.


I will not repeat the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who quoted the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, on which I sit, which argued that the clause is highly inappropriate. Rather than do that, I will put to the sponsor of the Bill a simple question, and I would be grateful if he addressed it when he winds up. I quote from the report of the committee:

“Delegated powers that can be used to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do are very rare, with the wording currently appearing in just two Acts: the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020”.


I was not on the committee when that report was produced, but my understanding is that the argument at the time was that the exigencies of Brexit required business to be done by regulation, rather than by an Act of Parliament. My question for the sponsor of the Bill is: what is the exigency in this case that requires the provision, which he believes needs to be made, to be made by regulation, which necessarily has to be dealt with on a “take it or leave it” basis, rather than by an Act of Parliament that Peers and Members of the other place can amend? I would be grateful if he could answer that question when he replies to the debate. If he cannot, I look forward to returning to this on Report, if we ever get there.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, regrettably, we are never going to get to Report. Members of the House keep referring to Report. My noble and learned friend, the sponsor of the Bill, has frequently said that he will come back to some of the questions that have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others. Normally, that would happen on Report. Were there a more disciplined and focused approach to scrutinising the Bill by those who oppose it, we would have perhaps got to Report, but we have not. We have had a long debate about Wales, including all sorts of questions about the devolutionary arrangements, and I wonder whether we can now hear from the Front Bench.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Would the noble Baroness perhaps like to make it clear whether she believes that it is inappropriate for the sponsor of the Bill to reply to the question I have just put in Committee?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Goodman of Wycombe

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

It is with some trepidation that I speak, since I realise how passionately the previous speakers think about what they have said. The first small point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred to Report—we are not going to have a Report stage, because we have taken so long in dealing with all the many, many amendments that have been tabled.

Leaving that on one side, we have to realise that doctors’ main objective is to try to alleviate suffering. This is what those of us backing the Bill believe it does: it will alleviate suffering—sometimes terrible suffering—and torment by allowing people to choose the time of their death when they are already dying. We must not forget this. If we accept that this is the role of doctors, that this is what they try to do in their professional work, we must allow them to discuss at an appropriate point, in their judgment, all the possible options that are available to the dying person. If the Bill were enacted, one of the options would be an assisted death if they had reached that point. So to say that a doctor in a close relationship with his or her patient would be unable to raise this as a possible option would be entirely wrong.

I advise everybody, if they have not done so already, to look at what the BMA says about this. It has specifically briefed against prohibiting doctors from initiating discussion about assisted dying under the Bill, warning that it will be detrimental to patient care. I accept this piece of advice from the BMA. It is a view that many doctors, and some in this Chamber, too, would actually adhere to and agree with.

I very much hope that this group of amendments will not be accepted. It does not mean that at the end the patient is not the one who makes the decision about whether to request an assisted death—of course he or she does. But it just becomes one of the options that is available to them, and that is an option I believe we should allow them to be aware of.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hollins. It was also referred to approvingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, in her earlier remarks. My amendment would prohibit medical professionals from raising assisted dying as an option, unless explicitly requested by the patient.

I will be very brief in introducing this amendment, by pointing out to the Committee that it goes to the heart of a juxtaposition suggested by the Bill. On the one hand, we have an increasingly large, frail, vulnerable, often elderly population, who may not have the full autonomy that the sponsor of the Bill suggests. On the other hand, we have a National Health Service that, by the nature of events, is almost always underfunded and feels that it will be underfunded. If you put those two things together, there will be an inevitable pressure to cut costs and present the cheaper option to the patient who is seeking guidance.

I have carefully read the sponsor’s words in Clause 5 and it is true that, on paper, the patient must be offered the option of palliative care as well as that of an assisted death. However, in these circumstances of financial restriction, I am concerned about the patient being steered in a certain direction. I will not regale the Committee with horror stories from abroad, usually from Canada, about precisely this taking place. Were I to do that, the sponsor of the Bill and others would, quite rightly, point out that there are safeguards in the Bill that are not present in Canada. I would point out in return that safeguards can be whittled away over time. In making that point, I mean nothing to the detriment of the sponsor of the Bill; I am sure that he does not mean it to happen but, over time, people can make amendments and changes to legislation.

I will step back from this amendment and look at it in this way. I believe that assisted dying is intrinsically problematic and, if the Bill ever got further, I would vote against it at Third Reading. However, my concern while we are here is to improve the Bill. If we are to have such a Bill, I want it to be in the best—I should say the least bad—condition possible. Noble Lords know that nothing in the amendment would alter the basic architecture and structure of what the sponsor of the Bill has proposed—in relation to the first doctor, the second doctor, the panel, proxies, the regime for regulating substances or any of that. The amendment would do nothing whatever to prevent anyone seeking an assisted death. All it would do is to prevent a medical professional raising it.

Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the sponsor that, if he wants to make some progress with the Bill, he might accept this amendment or one of the many others in this group to a similar end. I look forward to hearing him when he replies but, whether he does accept it or not, this amendment would write a safeguard into the Bill that is not there, and I commend it to the Committee.