Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

My point is this: there is a real risk of implicit coercion at both interpersonal and institutional levels. This must be considered alongside explicit coercion in any future legislation. Keeping assisted dying outside the NHS may mitigate these systemic and institutional pressures. I have tried to find some ways to make the Bill safer, to minimise any unintended consequences on patient care and the NHS. Sadly, the noble and learned Lord responded to all my amendments with the words, “I don’t agree”. I conclude that my concerns, and the concerns expressed by the medical royal colleges and organisations representing disabled people, have not and could not be addressed.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

With the greatest respect to a number of noble Lords, I think what we are hearing is, in a sense, what we would have heard had we taken the Bill to Third Reading. We are hearing debates about the principle of the Bill, whereas this debate should be about where we have reached and either how we should have dealt with it or how we should deal with another Bill if we are presented with one like it in a future Session. I will focus on that point. I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because he made some very important and substantial points about how we should do that.

Some noble Lords might remember that, several weeks ago, I said that I thought our responsibility was to proceed with the Bill to the point where, on Report, we would consider and improve it by amendment and vote on it. I said that we should therefore take the Bill to Third Reading and that it was my expectation that we would send it back, in an improved form, to the other place. To achieve that, I said that I would withdraw the amendments in my name—and I did so. I was very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Goodman of Wycombe and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for assisting in withdrawing those amendments. No other noble Lords did that, to my knowledge.

What I want to say, in a sentence, is: we are a self-regulatory House. If we wish that to work, we have to regulate ourselves, because we cannot rely on someone else doing it for us. We did not do that. We have to think very carefully about any future Bill that we receive and seek to do that. We should do it through our normal procedures. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, we should think again and differently about how we conduct Committee procedures in relation to a Bill of this kind, but we definitely should do it substantively on Report with votes.

When we see a new Bill—I do not know what the proposals will be in another place—we definitely should not see the same Bill presented back to us by way of the Parliament Act procedure. The sponsors of the Bill should recognise that the debates we have had—and the amendments that we have seen but not necessarily debated, of which several are mine—should be incorporated into substantial revisions of any Bill. I draw attention to just two areas. First, having just listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I agree with her that we need more by way of safeguards in relation to the availability of high standards of palliative and end-of-life care built into the Bill—one of my amendments was to that effect.

Secondly and in particular, I draw noble Lords’ attentions to the two speeches made in earlier debates by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on the relationship between the structure of this Bill and the National Health Service: it will not work as it is presently structured. We have to go back to thinking about an assisted dying service, if we wish there to be one, which operates independently from the NHS but, of course, with the participation of all the willing clinicians and others who are professionally needed to support it. It will not work if it is put into the structure of the NHS as we presently have it.

I hope that, if the sponsors of this Bill wish to bring back another Bill, it will be a different Bill. For my part, I hope that those who have been opposed to this Bill would be willing to put aside the fact that they are opposed in principle and leave that to the Third Reading debate, when, if they are opposed in principle, they can vote against it. At least give those who are in favour of the Bill—and those in another place, if they send it back to us—the opportunity to see what the Bill would look like with the amendments that we think need to be made to it. At the moment, on this procedure, we have not accomplished that responsibility.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I put down one amendment and did not speak to it. I do not like the Bill—everyone knows that—but I was working, and trying very hard, to get it to Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for recognising that. I want to say to your Lordships something about the future. It is inevitable that there will be another Bill. I implore the other House, assisted by us, that we must have pre-legislative scrutiny at that point, because if we have pre-legislative scrutiny then we really should be putting it through this House.