Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

At end insert “, recognising the reports and recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, “The Lord moves in mysterious ways” is a well-known phrase. But today perhaps it is better to say, “The Lords move in mysterious ways”. I came back from the Council of Europe specifically to continue debate on the Bill, because I believe that scrutiny is necessary. I thought that the purpose of a sitting Friday on the Bill was to debate the legislation before us, not to debate process.

I tabled this amendment to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in response to the letter circulated by the Bill’s sponsors to MPs this week, which I consider was actually somewhat misleading. I make specific reference in my amendment to the excellent reports prepared by respected cross-party Select Committees of this House: the Constitution Committee and, in particular, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The continuing claim that this Bill is the safest in the world and was largely good to go in this House—perhaps with a few tweaks—just does not hold true. The reports and recommendations therein of the two committees to which I have referred were pretty damning about the unprecedented use of Henry VIII powers, the number of issues to be left to regulations, and so on. If I were the sponsor of the Bill, I would have been embarrassed by the outcome of these reports. It was embarrassing to read for Peers who also support the principle of the Bill, but those reports confirmed that this was a poor and flawed Bill.

At Second Reading I raised my main issue, which was about guarding against indirect coercion—a topic that came up from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in particular. For certain, safety is not secure in this Bill. Nevertheless, I suggested that while I would try to make improvements to the way the Bill worked, I felt then that the Commons might need to start again and come up with a better Bill.

For what it is worth, I wish the Government had been more open about the discussions they were having with the Bill’s sponsors. I respect the Government’s neutrality, but it was particularly important to see how the Bill might work in practice. Time after time, parliamentary routes proved fruitless. Freedom of information requests were turned down repeatedly and consistently, if the departments even bothered to reply. They certainly have not replied to lots of the appeals that were made. The ongoing response was that it would not be in the public interest to reveal the discussions on what had happened or on how this might work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware, and I am sure she will agree, that if the Bill comes back a second time to the Commons, it will come back here. The effect of the Parliament Act is not to stop further debate but simply to prevent the House blocking the Bill and not returning it to the Commons.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Yes, I completely agree. That is why I say that I respect the right of MPs to decide to use the Parliament Act process. But I would rather that we did not have to go through all this again, having to change what has been a flawed Bill at this end. I appreciate and am aware of the Parliament Act process.

I completely understand the passion of people who want assisted dying to happen in this country. A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or other things being key criteria, or about autonomy versus the risk of coercion, and I think they should come up with a better Bill.

I am conscious that I have spoken for somewhat longer than I had intended. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two Houses are different in their processes. I could have given examples of popular PMBs; one in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons and then never made it through this House. I am conscious that others want to speak and, for what it is worth, I do want us to go into Committee at some point today. With that, I beg to move.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed that she will be called as the third speaker in the debate on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords are very aware, the Government remain neutral on the Bill and on the principle of assisted dying. This is a Private Member’s Bill, not government legislation. On issues of societal change, as we have discussed, Private Members’ Bills have long been a vehicle to handle matters of sensitivity and important matters of conscience, as in this case.

As I made clear during my remarks at Second Reading and throughout Committee, my role, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Levitt, has been to help to ensure that, if passed, the Bill would be technically and legally workable. Sixteen sitting Fridays were allocated for debate on the Bill and, as my noble friend the Chief Whip has said consistently, it was for the sponsor of the Bill and your Lordships’ House to determine how to use that time.

We know that assisted dying is an emotive topic, and we recognise that there are deeply held views on all sides of the debate. We have spent many hours debating this important matter and, while noble Lords across the House have often differed on matters of principle and policy, I believe that there is a desire in the House to do the best for people at the end of their lives, at their most vulnerable.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a really helpful debate. I am quite sad that we did not get to Committee at all, but never mind. I am conscious that we are in a Session where eight Private Members’ Bills have become Acts of Parliament, and I place on record my thanks to the Ministers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who has often stepped in for Ministers. I am grateful to her for that.

According to information provided by the House of Lords to me—it could give me information covering only to the end of February—651 Peers have turned up on one of the Fridays we have spent considering this Bill, 87 of us have turned up for every single Friday and 16 of them have spoken today. Some 516 Peers attended at least one day at Second Reading, while 327 turned up for both. There has certainly been interest in this Bill but, I am sure and appreciate, there have also been frustrations on both sides that we could not make more progress in that time, particularly during the 13 days in Committee—recognising that the House did not go into Committee today.

One of the things that it is important to consider is how we address things more quickly. I do not just mean looking at the brevity of speeches. In fact, on the first day in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, thanked me for the brevity of my speech. We need to see how we can more quickly address things such as DPRRC reports, particularly when we debate Private Members’ Bills. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to several things in that report, and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has acted on some of them—although perhaps not to the committee’s satisfaction. However, in the committee’s second report, there remain three clauses that it felt should be removed from the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Rooker, and I had done quite a lot of work trying to address the DPRRC’s recommendations, including coming up with potential for others in that regard.

There has been only one point today when I thought Standing Order 31 might need to be invoked. We should reflect that we have been able to do this, even when it has got a bit tense. I assure the House that I have been working on spreadsheets and trying to get more groups together to try to get through this. I have actually been surprised that we have not got through that many groups on a Friday when I have been encouraging people to make progress, because I believe it is important we do so. As I say, however, I have no doubt that a lot of this has been done with great sincerity. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment (to the Amendment) withdrawn.