Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lord Goodman of Wycombe

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My intervention will be brief and is addressed to the noble and learned Lord. Does he believe that his amendments will ever be adopted and incorporated into a piece of legislation that will be passed in this Session? If in fact, as we read in many newspapers and in other media, it is unlikely to be adopted, I therefore address a question to my noble friend the Minister: why are we permitting more time to be given to a pointless exercise, when the country can ill afford to be spending money on pursuing legislation that will never be implemented?

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group. Two of them cover ground already explored by other noble Lords, so I will not go over that ground again. We will simply address two of them, Amendments 540A and 862C. I will deal with the latter amendment first. Amendment 862C relates in subject matter to Amendment 459A, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, described to noble Lords a few moments ago, and which he tabled in response to the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee. As others have said, that is very welcome. My amendment seeks to ensure that the regulation-making power in Clause 22 is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. After all, that is a more exacting procedure, and I would have thought it was appropriate. If the noble and learned Lord thinks it is not, perhaps he would like to explain why when he responds to this debate.

Amendment 540A concerns a matter raised earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass: training. The impact assessment refers to training for healthcare professionals and sets out three levels: tiers 1, 2 and 3. Tier 1 is

“a 90-minute e-learning module and a 60-minute online interactive session with a facilitator”.

That is the lowest level, and then there is tier 2. Tier 3 is

“an advanced two-day in-person training package, aimed at staff who are likely to lead the VAD service and act as the coordinating doctor”.

I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could answer this when he responds: given the importance of the role of the independent advocate, is it not necessary for training to be at the highest level? Would not, say, the tier 3 training set out in the impact assessment be appropriate? If it is not, what other training does he think might be appropriate?