Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Hollins

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The framework that is to be applied by the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor is the framework for assessing capacity under the Mental Capacity Act. That is what the Bill says, and I am resisting the changes in Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is proposing something rather different from that which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is proposing. She proposes that the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a framework for the assessing and determination of capacity; that having capacity is to be read in accordance with that framework and not the framework under the Mental Capacity Act; that regulations must involve setting out an evidence-based methodology; and that any assessment must be conducted by a practitioner psychologist who holds particular qualifications and requires the use of validated, standardised instruments capable of detecting subtle or partial impairments in cognition, reasoning or decision-making capacity.

I understand from the speech that the noble Baroness made, and from her splendidly detailed amendment, that particular specialists applying a different regime from that which already applies, with specialised tests, should be the only people who can give a capacity assessment here. Again, in my respectful submission, that falls foul of the same arguments that I advanced before. The first of those is that the Mental Capacity Act is tried and tested in dealing with the question of whether someone is able to make the decision. Secondly—and I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave me the opportunity to answer this—the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor will require training, and the panel will have experience in making these decisions. Thirdly, they will be making decisions having received proper advice.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

A bespoke decision-making framework would initially be legally untested, but the same is true of the Mental Capacity Act, which, as my noble friend Lady Cass said, has never been operationalised or judicially tested in the context of assisted dying. The idea that the two doctors involved would be trained ignores my point that this kind of complexity is not something that can be learned simply through an extra little module. It requires years of experience to help people develop the understanding and ability to make these kinds of assessments. Further, the existence of bespoke decision-making frameworks is not novel in UK law. The Mental Health Act already operates in power over the Mental Capacity Act, recognising that certain contexts require a different approach to decision-making.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I do not want to be disrespectful, but that was just a repeat of the speech that has already been made and it did not contain a question. I completely respect the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, but she should really only ask me questions, rather than make a speech in the middle of my speech. I apologise for having to say that, but she has not asked me a question.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

Let me frame it as a question then. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are already bespoke decision-making frameworks and that this is not novel in UK law?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I agree that there are bespoke decision-making processes in existence. It is not the law; it is how it works in practice. Through codes of practice, it will be possible to develop appropriate methods of dealing with it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Hollins

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will act immediately on the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and respond briefly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Berger said. Basically, they are referring to the problem of people who lack capacity and who have had their liberty deprived because their lack of capacity is so severe that they cannot be trusted to be free. That normally takes place in the setting of a hospital or a care home, but it can also take place in the setting of a private home; that is where the Cheshire East cases come into play.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that this should be a yellow flag. If your lack of capacity is so serious that your liberty is taken away, it indicates that something is seriously wrong. The principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that capacity should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There will be cases where someone’s liberty is taken away where they would not necessarily lack capacity in relation to very serious issues.

I should have declared this before. Apart from my receiving money from Mr Bernard Lewis to pay for an assistant and having Dignity in Dying pay for the publication of some printing that went to Peers, my wife was, until very recently, a designated family judge and sat in the Court of Protection. I should disclose that.

Among the sorts of case that come before the courts —they will come before the courts, not a local authority—are those of people who desperately do not want to leave their home. Eventually, they will have to have an order from the Court of Protection, meaning that they have to leave; this is sometimes accompanied by a deprivation of liberty order. Many of those people, even though they are moved somewhere else, would still have the capacity to make a decision in relation to assisted dying.

How do we deal with the perfectly legitimate points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay? I have had the opportunity to discuss this with the noble Baroness; I thank her for that. The answer is that there should be some form of enhanced protection to deal with what she says is a yellow flag. I suggest to the Committee that I speak to those Peers who are interested—including my noble friend Lady Berger and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, who sadly cannot be here today—to see what form that enhanced protection could take.

I hope that in the light of what I have indicated, we can move on to the next amendment.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to comment on this group in response to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has just said.

In its recent briefing for Peers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists gave its view:

“Assessors should be required to take all practicable steps to work with professionals involved in a person’s health and social care, and to talk to a relative, carer or nominated friend, including by accessing medical notes from both primary and secondary care”.


It expressed concern that

“a consideration of suicide protection duties are being bypassed by the Bill in its current form”

due to unmet need not being formally assessed. A previous DoLS is relevant to consideration of current capacity to decide to end one’s life. What would be the mechanism for reliably ensuring information that there has been a DoLS before it gets to the assessors and the panel?

Having mentioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists, I would like to make a short statement. The college has asked me to respond to the allegations about its leadership made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on 14 November, our first day in Committee. The president of the college, Dr Lade Smith, wrote to the noble Baroness asking her to withdraw her allegations, as they are inaccurate. But although the noble Baroness was present in the Chamber the following week, no clarification was provided. As a past president myself, I beg leave to set the record straight.

The college’s recommendations on the Bill are, in fact, based on 18 months’ consideration by a cross-college working group involving membership surveys, debate with members on proposals before other jurisdictions, and discussions with colleagues in other jurisdictions where assisted dying is practised. The president is clear that Dr Annabel Price, the appointed college lead for the Bill, has accurately represented its views when giving formal evidence to both Houses. With the Bill before the Lords, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is focusing on how to make it safer for people with mental health needs and learning disability needs, and better aligned with the responsibilities of psychiatrists. I feel that, in the light of the discussion on DoLS, this is an appropriate statement to make.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Hollins

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I would not be able to accept the amendment as tabled because I have numerous other amendments on disability, language, BSL, different levels of interpretation and Makaton that are all important when having these conversations. Following the offer that the noble and learned Lord made to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I would be delighted to join the meeting as well, to see how the noble and learned Lord’s amendments can be improved to move further down the road. What we are trying to do is to make sure that people go into this decision-making process clearly understanding the decision they are taking.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

If such a meeting were to take place, I would be delighted to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the alternative wording I proposed when I spoke to the amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

First, both noble Baronesses would be very welcome to attend this meeting, which is expanding all the time. Secondly, the language the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, proposed was “reasonable adjustments”, which is in the first draft but not the second. The reason we have not used the wording “reasonable adjustments” is that it comes from the disability Act. We want to do that and then go wider, and our amendment therefore gives greater width.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

It is the Equality Act, not the disability Act. I suggested that the definition of “disability” in the Equality Act, with respect to something like this, would in fact include someone with a long-term condition or mental illness, as well as any other disabling condition that the noble and learned Lord may be referring to.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it is the Equality Act, not the disability Act; I apologise for that. If we were to restrict it to that, we would restrict it to a particular thing, and we think that it should be wider that. Again, we can talk about that at the ever-expanding meeting.

On Amendment 416, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was particularly exercised by the fact that the second doctor would not see the report of the first doctor; he would have some degree of problem with that. The noble Lord will know that, where a second doctor is brought in—where a referral is made to a new practitioner—the co-ordinating doctor must provide the new doctor with a copy of the previous report. If the new doctor is satisfied as to all the matters mentioned in Clause 11 on capacity et cetera, he or she then has to say why he or she disagrees with the previous doctor. The noble Lord’s legitimate sharpness in relation to that point was based, I think, on an improper understanding of Amendment 416, which will allow this to happen only once the new doctor sees the report of the previous doctor.

In the light of my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which was right for us to have, I will not move my amendment. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was kind enough to indicate that she will withdraw her amendment to my amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, thinks his drafting is better, we will have to wait and see what happens on Report. Do not hold it against me when I come back with the same amendment on Report.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Hollins

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I have been proud to support the completion of the Leveson public inquiry, not just for the benefit of past victims, including my family, but mainly to prevent future victimisation. I make it quite clear that although I am disappointed, I reluctantly accept the decision of the other place that it does not wish to proceed with and complete a public inquiry. However, some of the misrepresentations about my amendment that were made in the other place were quite disappointing, and some speakers remained in denial about the continuing bad behaviour of some elements of the national media. So, to my surprise, since last week’s vote I have been approached by some Members from the other place who voted with the Government, to ask me not to give up.

Some noble Lords believe that my amendments have secured real progress in holding the press to account through the new government amendments. I have a more guarded response. I am very interested in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It would prevent state interference in press regulation and appoint a truly independent reviewer, and would restore the place of the Press Recognition Panel—the PRP—without the Government directing it. I look forward to due consideration by the Minister of that suggestion.

What people want is an apology and a promise that it will not happen again. As a victim, a mother, a grandmother and a psychiatrist, I try to put people first. Instead, it seems that the focus is on money, with promises that the media will engage with IPSO’s low-cost arbitration scheme, which is just one of the 29 other equally important Leveson criteria for an effective regulator. In addition, it appears that the proposed review in four years’ time is being done in secret and with no clear criteria.

As always, I am willing to meet Ministers at the DCMS, IPSO and the ICO, and invite other victims to join me; and perhaps, one day, a victim-first approach will be embraced by them all. I say to the Government that despite their new provisions, they have let them get away with it again. However, now is not the time to press this further; rather, it is a time to watch and wait.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment A3 in my name is an amendment to Motion A. I will speak to it now although it will be formally moved later.

I want to make two points, the first of which is to explain the purpose of my Amendment A3. Before I do so, however, I want to take up what the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, said. He begged the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to withdraw his amendment, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, made from a slightly different point of view. It is important to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is saying—and I strongly support what he is saying. He accepts that in the context of this Bill, the question of Leveson 2 has effectively been decided. We have sent it back twice to the Commons and, first with a majority of nine and then with a majority of 12, the Commons said that it did not want Leveson 2.