Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, this is an important and moving debate. It is an honour to speak in it and to follow some of the previous contributions. These amendments highlight the fact that eligibility is not the same as motivation. I agree with almost everything that has been said before me; I will not delay the Committee by repeating those points.

There are two things that I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention. First, I remind noble Lords of points made by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester. The Bill, if passed, will apply to those in our prison system, for whom there will be very particular motivations, which we need to make sure can be fairly applied to them.

Secondly, if the Bill is passed, we have a duty of care to those who survive the deceased. Some of us have had the privilege of sitting with many bereaved families. In my experience, there is almost not a death which does not leave a huge wake of pain behind it. Indeed, the one or two in which that has not been the case have been some of the most distressing pastoral situations I have ever dealt with. Where there has been an element of choice to that dying, the “what ifs”, the “if onlys” and the longings are deeply profound scars, which live with people for a long time. In passing the Bill—if we do pass it—we have a responsibility of care, not just to those considering their own death but to those left behind, those who are caring and those who long to do everything they can to be with those they love deeply, and to support and enable them to carry on living and to do so well.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to these amendments, in particular to Amendment 30. I know from listening to previous groups that the Minister will feel the need to explain that Amendment 30, as drafted, is not fit for purpose and will not help the Bill. However, in Committee, the important thing is to flag the key issues and to see whether we can put forward proposals—I realise that this is a very tall order—for wording suggestions and ideas that might be acceptable to the sponsor of the Bill. There is a set of issues in Amendment 30 that warrants careful listening and attention.

It is not sufficient to say that the Bill is about providing choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, most Members of your Lordships’ House have many advantages that would allow us to get specialist treatment, the opportunities of second opinions, and possibly social care that we might need. Other people do not have that. Therefore, it might be appropriate to say at the end of life, “I do not want to be a burden. I want not to be a burden to my family; I should have an assisted death”. That is fine if the choice is that of an individual who has all their faculties and all the resources available to them saying, “This is my choice, and I want to do that”. But what about the person who says, “Actually I think I need an assisted death because there is nobody to care for me, social care in my area is not adequate, the state cannot afford to fund it and the palliative care is not available”?

The answers to the group the end of last week about palliative care started off a series of quite chilling responses. It was said that palliative care is not equal across the country, but we cannot wait until we get something like equality before this legislation should come in. I think that is what I heard the noble and learned Lord say at the end of last week. But why should some people be put in that invidious position of maybe not really wanting an assisted death, but feeling that there is no or inadequate palliative or social care available to them, when other people would not be making those choices?

It is incredibly important that, as this Chamber in Westminster, we do our duty not just to pass legislation because we think that, in principle, it is what society wants and that, in principle, people might want a Bill that allows for assisted dying; we have to ensure that any piece of legislation passed does not leave certain people more vulnerable. At the moment, this legislation does not do that.