Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, it is far easier to develop a code of practice over time and change it in the context of changes in the environment. It is much more difficult to change a law by statute, which means it has to be brought back into both Houses of Parliament, so I do not really think that the point the noble Baroness just made is valid.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, having listened to this debate, I am struck that there seems to be a fair bit of consensus. Thinking back to the arrangement of business discussion we had about the pace before this debate, I have listened to the number of people who quoted Kim Leadbeater and her uncomfortableness about making these decisions on Zoom. It strikes me that if she had followed through on that uncomfortableness and put into the Bill a clear presumption that these decisions should be taken face to face, with some exceptions that I will elaborate on in a minute, we would not have needed this debate and we would be moving at a faster pace. There is perhaps a lesson there for the noble and learned Lord: if more cognisance had been taken about some of these concerns at an earlier stage, we would have moved at a faster pace.

The only reason why these amendments exists, why we have debated them and why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, referenced how important a decision this is to get right is that this issue has not already been addressed. I will just leave that there as a possible reason why there are as many amendments as there are to this lengthy Bill and why the debate is necessary: it is because it has not already been done. I will leave that for noble Lords to think about.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I have one note of question. We are all quoting Kim Leadbeater and how she felt about the Oregon example, but, in fact, it may be that she was not talking about the issue of videolinking but about assessments that were done solely on the basis of paperwork. I think we need to find out exactly what Kim Leadbeater was saying before we jump to conclusions about whether the promoters of this Bill have been neglectful in the way that they have dealt with that issue.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point which illustrates the importance of being able to ask people questions directly rather than hearing reports of what they have said or seeing it on a video call. That is the importance of in-person conversation and the ability to ask questions and hear answers so that you know what people actually think. I think the noble Baroness has illustrated and evidenced my point extraordinarily well, and I am grateful for her intervention.

At the beginning of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred to medical assessments. She is right in saying that many of them can be done very well remotely. I think that is excellent. I am a great supporter of technology. We do not all believe in quills and pens, and I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was entirely suggesting that we were. She might want to reflect on that remark and whether it was entirely well-intentioned, given what the Chief Whip said to us about treating everyone with courtesy and respect. I support the use of technology where it is appropriate.

The problem here is that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said that we can all rest assured that doctors would never view this as a routine exercise. The problem is that in other jurisdictions there is quite a lot of evidence that they do. While it is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, that the vast majority of doctors will approach this in absolutely the right way, I am afraid not all doctors are perfect. There was an example yesterday of a paediatrician at Great Ormond Street who had an appalling record. We have to make sure that the law makes sure that patients are properly protected in all cases, not just in the vast majority of them. Where I disagree with her slightly is that this is a policy decision, not a medical decision. Whether assessments should be face to face, either in every case or that the presumption should be that they are, is a policy decision, rightly for Parliament, not for clinicians. It should be informed by listening to clinicians, but it should also be informed by listening to evidence from the patient experience, so ably set out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Berger.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave her own testimony that she has had to make decisions in these cases, and I was very struck by her view that we should certainly have a presumption that these decisions should be taken face to face. I was very struck by listening to her on previous occasions. Her experience on these matters carries a lot of weight. I also listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, when he set out the GMC’s advice. Decisions for patients with a terminal illness about a course of action that will lead to the end of their life seem to me to fall squarely within the set of cases where you would want a face-to-face appointment, but equally I felt there was good counsel for us and challenge from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Blackstone, to think of the patient, the person who has the terminal illness who wants a decision. They were right to challenge us on that.

That is why I think, if we look at the balance of amendments in this group, they are very helpful because they set out a span of choices for your Lordships, from saying that every decision has to be taken in person, which I think would be wrong for the reasons that the three noble Baronesses set out, that you have to look at the patient’s views, but equally, I think the present wording is too loose and does not set out a presumption that they should be face to face. I would be very grateful to hear the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on where he thinks he is likely to settle because that will be helpful for all of us when thinking about whether we have to table further amendments. It seems to be a presumption that it is face to face, but with a very limited set of circumstances where it can be not face to face. But we should not accept the presumption in a patient-centred model that the patient always has to go and see the panel or the doctors. It should absolutely be, particularly because so many people in these circumstances are going to be in poor health, that we think of a system that makes sure that when it comes to the panel at least one member of the panel, the independent person, is physically present.

That is important. These amendments touch on two parts of Clause 17. The first is subsection (6), which states:

“The duty under subsection (4)(b) to hear from the person to whom the referral relates does not apply if the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from that person”.


That means there are circumstances where the panel does not have to hear from the person at all: not by videolink, not in person, not by pre-recorded video, not at all. That was confirmed to me when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I were doing a media programme—I think it was “The Week in Westminster”—where I challenged him on this. He confirmed that there were circumstances in which a decision could be taken for someone to seek assisted suicide and the panel would never have to see them at all. I do not think that is right.

The other subsection these amendments touch on is subsection (5), which states:

“Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material”.


That was inserted in the House of Commons by a Back-Bench amendment. It was not very well debated. The fact that it is pre-recorded means that it gets rid of any opportunity for questioning or challenge. The problem I have with the language there is that it says “medical reasons”, it does not say “medical reasons pertaining to the patient”. This is my last point—

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

We are forgetting that we can use the telephone in this circumstance. It is not even that you would have sight of the person, but you could have a pre-recorded telephone call.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for that. The final point I want to make is that we had experience during the pandemic of too many vulnerable people, people with learning disabilities, having “do not resuscitate” notices put on them by doctors. I do not want to see a system where, if we had a similar circumstance again, these sorts of decisions would be taken remotely at speed. We know from our deliberations in this House, and it is my experience in the other place, that there is no substitute for doing these things face to face where you can challenge people, ask questions, put people under that challenge and get good answers to make good decisions.

I commend this group of amendments to your Lordships, and I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I would like to provide a brief clarification on the back of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about the points raised by Ms Leadbeater’s comments about feeling uncomfortable. It came from a report on ITVX on 6 March 2025. An assessment was taking place with Dr Jess Kaan. I believe family members were there, and then she asked the patient’s family to leave the room so that she could privately ask the patient whether it was a settled wish. The patient said yes, it was. I quote directly from the ITV website:

“For Kim Leadbeater, the virtual consultations did not make for comfortable viewing—she says it has made her think about adding an amendment to make clear that consultations with doctors cannot be done via video call and that they should be done in person”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

As a lawyer, going for a presumption is wrong. I think the right thing to do is say something such as the norm is face to face, but there could be circumstances in which you may not do that. You should give maximum flexibility.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I just illustrate, perhaps, to the noble and learned Lord why people are so nervous? In the Commons, at Second Reading and for much of the Committee stage, MPs were told that the panel would have to speak to the patient. Amendments were tabled subsequently—the ones I talked about—which then allowed the panel to accept pre-recorded video and waive hearing from the applicant entirely in those undefined exceptional circumstances. I absolutely accept the argument against a blanket position, but if there was a rebuttable presumption that it should be face to face and some circumstances were set out, which could be developed with case law, from listening to the debate, it seems that that would command widespread support from the Committee and would deal both with people’s concerns and, rightly, the patient-centred approach that the three noble Baronesses set out for noble Lords.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

In relation to the noble Lord’s point about the imposition of subsection (6), the Bill currently says that the panel

“must (subject to subsection (6)) hear from, and may question, the person to whom the referral relates”,

so it has to question the person, though not necessarily in person. Subsection (6), which he referred to, says:

“The duty … to hear from the person … does not apply if the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from that person”.


That was added during Committee, because a Member of the Committee described the circumstances of his own mother, I think. That is why it happened. But I will note what the noble Lord says. I do not think I will go for a presumption, but I hear what he says.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord talked about questioning; this is important, because I think he slightly misspoke. Subsection (5) says:

“Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material”.


The problem with that is that you lose any ability to ask questions, which is critical. That was added afterwards—after people had heard these concerns—and it went backwards. Will the noble and learned Lord reflect on that? If he is going to table an amendment, I ask him to make sure that it reflects the debate that he has heard this morning in your Lordships’ Committee.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Obviously, you cannot ask questions under subsection (6), so it is exactly the same point. The point being made in subsections (5) and (6) is that the panel recognises that there are circumstances in which questioning is not possible. I do not know what additional point the noble Lord was making.

--- Later in debate ---

My noble and learned friend can wipe out many of the amendments, and he can wipe out the ones he has actually tabled by operating the policy of the Government he was a member of. Clause 1 stands apart, and I agree that it is a major junction of the Bill. From now on, the sponsor can get up to speed and get the Bill ready for the Commons, or he can run out of time. It is his call, not ours.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to say anything, but I was provoked—in a nice way—by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and his advice, which was well meant, to the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I agree with him, but I think a bit more work is required.

I referred earlier to the letter that the noble and learned Lord sent to Members of the House. I urge him to test his mailing list, because it did not go to all Members; I received a copy of it only from another Member, and it would be helpful if we all received a copy. I now hear from my noble friend Lord Deben that he has not received it at all.

I have two things to say. First, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendations. It was pretty scathing about the number of powers the Bill gives to Ministers with very little oversight. If I am being fair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has engaged extensively with the recommendations of the committee in what he has set out. That is the good bit.

But I do not think the noble and learned Lord has really taken on board the point the committee made because he has largely, as I see in his amendments, preserved the Bill’s delegated skeletal architecture. Rather than limiting executive power and putting safeguards and limits in the Bill, he has added in all sorts of things, such as scrutiny and consultation, at the back end. He has not actually got the point, which is that the Bill should not have those delegated powers in the first place. Exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, I humbly suggest accepting what the committee said and following its recommendations. That would be helpful.

The second point is about pace. The Delegated Powers Committee reported in September last year, and only half way through Committee we got a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, setting out his response to it. My experience as a Minister was that if we had received the report from the Delegated Powers Committee, as the Minister I would have been expected to have my response ready at the start of Committee—or, frankly, Members of your Lordships’ House would have stood up and said some very disobliging things.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The noble Lord would have had a whole department and civil servants behind him at that time.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I have two points to make on that intervention from the noble Baroness. First, on several occasions the noble and learned Lord has made reference to quite a significant number of officials that he has had working with him, helping him draft clauses and so forth. If the argument is that that is still not enough resource, that rather supports my contention—which I have made from the beginning—that the extent and nature of this legislation makes it absolutely not suitable for a Private Member’s Bill, and it should have been a government Bill. As I said, the noble and learned Lord has had extensive support from not just one but a number of government departments in helping him draft it.

My second and final point is on the issues that have arisen so far in Committee, particularly the issues that have arisen on Clause 1, which I think is why it is relevant to bring it up on the Clause 1 stand part debate. The noble and learned Lord referenced them in his letter, but he has not yet been in a position to set out what his amendments are going to be. He said that he will make them available as soon as he possibly can. That is good, and I welcome that, but, until we see them, we are not in a position to know whether further amendments need to be tabled for later in Committee or on Report. I finish by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. The extent to which we can now make progress is going to be largely governed by the extent to which the noble and learned Lord the sponsor of the Bill engages with the very fair criticisms that have been made across the Committee. We will listen carefully to what he says in response to this debate and in subsequent groups.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is right, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, that this clause stand part debate is an opportunity for a reset and a rethink about how we are approaching the Bill and the way we are prioritising the arguments. Where I slightly take issue with my noble friend is that I do not think it is helpful to apportion blame. We are where we are with this Bill now, and we are all under the clear impression and instruction that, if the Committee wants to change the Bill, whether those who oppose it or those who support it, we have to get it to Report so that we can do that and then send it back to the Commons improved and amended.

On the question of delegation, I worked with my noble friend Lord Blencathra—I will call him that—on the reports on delegated legislation, and they were extremely important. What we have discovered in this Bill, as the amendments have been put forward, is that there is a difficult balance to be achieved between what goes into the Bill on the principle and the design—our task in this House is to make every Bill workable—and what has been left to delegation. As a result of the nature of the Bill, the behavioural issues that are raised by it, and the extraordinary personal and exceptional circumstances when we are dealing with people in the last months of their life—which we should never lose sight of, no matter what we are debating and how technical and process-driven it is—we have to think about the balance between what is workable because it is in the Bill and will stand in law and what has to be left to delegation going forward and therefore can be amended as circumstances change. That is the situation the Australians find themselves in. We have a lot to learn, as we have already learned, from Australian medics who have told us how they are managing the Bill and what an extraordinary benefit it has been. That is on the public record.

All I would say, before my noble friend Lord Blencathra possibly opposes me, although I hope not, is that this is an opportunity to look at the amendments that are coming forward and the priorities we are attaching to them and whether we can triage them in some way. My noble friend Lord Rooker is right that a lot of these early amendments can fall away, because we have addressed the principle. Can we focus on what it will now take to agree to improve the Bill, so that we can have shared trust across the Committee that this is about improving the Bill and not delaying it to the point that it will never become law?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harper]

70: Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after “disease” insert “or injuries”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to include those who suffer unbearable injuries likely to result in death and will be particularly relevant to military personnel and those suffering industrial injuries.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 70, I will also speak to my Amendment 78 and to Amendment 829 from my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. The first two amendments were originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who was unable to be here last week—although we did not get to them then—so I have taken them over in my name.

I will explain to noble Lords why they have been tabled. They are responding to concerns raised by David Green, a barrister specialising in industrial disease cases, and Michael Rawlinson KC, who wrote to a number of Peers, alerting us to the fact that the current drafting of the Bill can negatively affect some victims of occupational diseases. I will set out that concern and then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can, I hope, respond to it in a more detailed way than he did in the letter that he circulated to Peers in the past day or so. I will also raise a couple of related issues that we will come to later in our debates and that concern similar issues.

The reference in the amendments is to “injuries” or “disease” that people get during their working life. The reason for including those words is to raise the following issue. If victims of occupational diseases opt for assisted suicide, their dependants, under my reading of it, would probably lose their right to sue whoever caused their disease under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, unless this Bill specifically provided otherwise, which it does not currently.

I will give noble Lords an idea of the size of the issue. In 2023, 2,218 people in Britain died of mesothelioma, which is the prime fatal occupational disease. It is a fatal cancer caused exclusively by asbestos. By way of comparison, that is considerably more than the 1,624 road deaths that year and we know how seriously the Government take that issue; they have just published an entire road safety strategy to reduce that number. Many more died of lung cancer with asbestos as a causative factor, or of respiratory failure secondary to asbestosis or pleural thickening, or of other occupational diseases.

Since virtually all instances of mesothelioma are caused by asbestos exposure, and most asbestos exposure was occupational, most victims can sue a former employer—in reality usually represented by an insurer. The damages recovered are an important way of paying for medical and nursing care and, importantly, of providing for surviving dependants. Claims arising from these occupational diseases can be pursued during the lifetime of the victim or by their families after their death under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. A good deal of claims are pursued after death in this way for the benefit of families, partly because the prognosis following a diagnosis of mesothelioma is, sadly, relatively short. That is why so many families have to seek the damages rather than the victim being able to do so.

The key point is that the dependants of a deceased person can sue if, and only if,

“death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages”.

That is in Section 1(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act. The requirement is that the breach of duties caused the death, but the law that has developed on that section requires an unbroken chain of causation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the death if the dependants of the deceased are to recover damages. In general, an individual’s decision to end their life by suicide breaks the chain of causation between a defendant’s earlier breach of duty and the death. In other words, the law considers that the death has been caused by the choice of the victim and not by the negligence of the defendant.

There are narrow exceptions to this rule—for example, where the defendant’s breach was of a duty to prevent suicide, as it was in the Reeves case, or where the defendant causes a psychiatric injury that itself causes the suicide. But where an individual has full capacity—we know that they must have if they have used this Bill, if it becomes an Act, because we have debated that at length—and the defendant’s duty was decades in the past, the common law would regard a freely made choice to end their life as a novus actus interveniens. Forgive me if I mispronounced that, not being a lawyer, as I have said on many occasions. It is a new and different cause, breaking the chain of causation.

That would mean that the person who died of fatal mesothelioma would have their cause of death recorded by the coroner as an industrial disease, but Clause 38 as drafted makes provision for the cause of death in these cases to be recorded for coronial and certification purposes as an assisted death and excludes this cause from the category of unnatural deaths, meaning that there is no inquest. That means that the assisted deaths will necessarily not be certificated as being caused by industrial disease, even if that were the cause of the terminal illness that led the deceased to be eligible for an assisted death.

That means that, under common law and the Fatal Accidents Act, it would break the chain of causation between the former employer’s negligence and the victim’s ultimate death. That means that a victim of an occupational cancer with a limited life expectancy who would meet the criteria in the Bill—and who would probably face a painful and unpleasant death, even though that is not a criterion in the Bill, as we have debated—has a dilemma. They have a choice between prolonging their suffering but preserving their family’s right to damages and ending their suffering but losing a right potentially worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to the people they leave behind. At the moment, that is not dealt with anywhere in the Bill.

I have a specific question about that, and I will refer in a minute to what the noble and learned Lord said in his letter. But I also want to ask whether there are other areas where similar issues have not been thought about. Two come to mind, the first of which is members of the Armed Forces. I tabled an amendment, which will come up later, because the compensation schemes in the Armed Forces again would not, in my understanding, pay out if somebody got an occupational disease because of their military service. If they were to seek an assisted suicide, that would preclude them and their dependants from receiving compensation under that scheme. That is even more particularly a failure given the duty of care that the state owes to those who put their lives at risk on its behalf.

I would also be interested in understanding the interaction between this and the Government’s statutory diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. In cases where there is no employer or insurer still in existence, or they cannot be identified, there is a statutory scheme, which I know a bit about; I took the regulations through Parliament as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. That pays out on diagnosis. It means, potentially, someone whose employer was still around and on the hook who sought an assisted suicide would do themselves or their dependants out of compensation, whereas somebody whose employer or insurer was not around or not traceable and who qualified under the statutory scheme, which is paid out on diagnosis, would actually not do themselves— I think—out of the compensation. That seems an invidious position based on complete chance.

I do not know whether that has been thought about by the sponsors of the Bill. I would be interested to know the specific answers to those questions and whether there are other areas like this which have not been considered. If this had been a government Bill, as part of the process, other government departments would have looked at it, thought about these issues and would have made sure they were dealt with.

My final point is that the noble and learned Lord referenced this and dealt with it a bit in the letter that he circulated. He thanked my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—whose name, as I said, was originally on these amendments—for their conversations. He said that he had tabled amendments to Clause 47, the reporting section of this Bill, which would require an early report about the impact. I welcome that, but I do not think it goes far enough.

If this Bill goes on to the statute book, there will be people whose legal position will be put at risk and damaged by what is in it. That is not going to be remedied by a report. If the report comes out and says “Yes, there is a problem”, it will require further primary legislation to fix it. It would be better if we understood what the issue is now and, if there is an issue, we should make sure there is an amendment tabled for Report which would deal with it—both for the Fatal Accidents Act and members of the Armed Forces.

In this area, it would be helpful if—I do not think this breaches the Government’s neutral position on the Bill—any other similar areas were identified so that we could deal with them with amendments on Report. That would be welcome. That was my purpose in tabling these two amendments. It is a very important area, and I look forward in due course to the answers from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow my noble friend and, I hope, be reasonably concise.

I asked for my Amendment 829 to be grouped with these amendments as it covers the same substantive ground. It was helpful that, about a fortnight ago, with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I met the noble and learned Lord, and we discussed this situation. Broadly speaking, there was acceptance. As I understand it, the sponsor of this Bill will be bringing forward an amendment which will tidy up various loose ends. The word “review” will be changed to “assessment”, there will be reference to victims of occupational diseases and one or two other tidying-up matters.

As has been explained—I can do this briefly, but it is important—as the Bill is drafted, it is highly probable that a victim of an occupational disease, such as asbestosis caused by the negligence of some tortfeasor, will, if they go down the assisted dying route, lose the right to recover damages for the injury that has put them in the position where they wish to die. This will also mean that their heirs and successors—their family—will lose that right to the Fatal Accidents Act claim.

If someone is suffering from a horrible illness, they may decide that they cannot bear it any longer and that they wish to terminate their life just a few months before the end. It would be quite wrong if their family and dependants, who deserve the money to cover themselves for the whole of the life that that person would have enjoyed but for the injury that created the asbestosis, should lose that entitlement to compensation because the victim has gone down the route of assisted dying. As the law stands—it has been to the Supreme Court or the House of Lords not in this context exactly but in others—it is quite clear that this would be a break in the chain of causation. It seems such to me and to others who are interested in this field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am afraid that I am not the Government. On the issue of risk, my proposal—although I recognise that some people want to go further—sets out a sensible course to reach the aim that everyone wants to reach, which is that the problem does not arise. One will have to look at the extent to which one has to warn against that problem when one sees where the review goes, because the question of what warnings have to be given will have to be addressed only at the point when the review has already reported and any action has been taken on it.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate, and it has raised a very important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, being a distinguished KC, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra spotted that I had not in my remarks pushed the injuries point. I confess that I am torn on that, because some injuries are effectively caused by employment, like mesothelioma where asbestos ingestion through employment results in an illness, as defined in this Bill already. Of course, there are other injuries that can be received in an employment context, where they would not qualify as an illness but where the outcomes may be very similar. But I do recognise all the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, so I am torn on that.