Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Meston

Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I seek clarity on a point raised in precisely this exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Lansley, particularly on the issue of “ordinarily resident”, following the enthusiasm expressed for aligning the language of the Bill with the usual terms of the NHS.

If we aligned “ordinarily resident” with NHS maternity care, for example, it would act as a definition for who pays but not for who receives the service. All pregnant women are entitled to the service of NHS maternity care; it is only whether it is free that depends on your residency, nationality and immigration status. Those ordinarily resident get free care, while overseas visitors and those not settled may have to pay charges, although care is never refused, and payment plans are available. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the enthusiasm for alignment with existing NHS terms would not extend to a widening of service eligibility, and thereby the UK becoming a destination venue?

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I seriously question whether Amendments 11 and 11A are necessary or useful. Following on from what has just been said, my experience in the courts is that the concept of ordinary residence stated in the Bill is well established in our law, workable in practice and well understood by practitioners and judiciary, particularly in family law, where it most often appears. It is a tried and tested expression.

To impose the more stringent precondition of permanent residence, requiring, in effect, unbroken physical presence, could unnecessarily—and, I suggest, unkindly—restrict the mobility of those who are seriously ill, or becoming seriously ill, who might be entitled to the benefits of the Bill if it is enacted. Such people, particularly those who have a clear, stable and lasting residential connection to England and Wales, should not be left to fear that they cannot make even a brief visit away from home, fully intending to return, in case that visit away is said to have changed or interrupted their permanent residence and thereby stopped the clock on their eligibility for assistance under the Bill’s provisions, requiring the qualifying period of 12 months to restart from the beginning. That, I suggest, would be a great disservice to such people and would not be any improvement to the Bill.

As for “domicile”, as others have already said, it is a notoriously difficult concept to define. You can have only one domicile at any one time. It can be a domicile of origin, a domicile of dependency or a domicile of choice. In the explanatory statement to the amendment seeking to introduce the concept of domicile, it is suggested that it would tighten the eligibility requirements. In reality, it would do little more than complicate them—indeed, in some situations, it could loosen them.

You can retain your domicile of origin in this country even if you have not lived here for years. You can also acquire a domicile of choice or revive a domicile of origin immediately on arrival in this country with no minimum period of residence. I therefore suggest that the substitution of “domiciled” for “ordinarily resident” would not be helpful to anyone. I suggest that we should adhere to the concept of ordinary residence.