Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, because he has just outlined many of the issues that your Lordships’ House needs to think about in the context of this Bill.

We have heard from several noble Lords that this is a matter of choice. Suddenly, the main campaign of those advocating for the Bill is to give people choice. In particular, we have heard that it would create a sense of equality and that, at the moment, if you have the resources, you might be able to go to Dignitas to end your life in the way that you wish but, if you do not have those resources, you will have to stay in the UK and potentially die a more difficult death. Therefore, the logic of the argument goes, by passing the Bill we will create a sense of equality. But the Bill fails to do that. The safeguards in it are not adequate and the time being proposed for us to debate and scrutinise this legislation is not adequate.

I say this, in many ways, for the reasons we have already heard in the Chamber today. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, talked about her own medical case and the very different situations if you manage to have quick healthcare through private provision or are stuck on an NHS waiting list. There are disparities at all stages. Those very people who might be able to pay to go to Dignitas may also be the very people who can pay to have private healthcare and have their medical treatment brought forward. Those disparities inevitably exist, so we need to be very clear that just suddenly saying that we are equalising provision and opportunities may not actually make it the case.

There is a very clear sense that ideas are put forward in the Bill but not fully defined, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in particular noted. The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, suggested that many people have written to her and other noble Lords saying, “Please adopt the Bill as it stands. We agree with every word of it”. Really? Much of the legislation is vague and the terms are not defined; I suspect that many of the people advocating for it will not have read it line by line. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out many of the questions that remain unanswered in the Bill. Those questions require very significant scrutiny.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, pointed out, this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we have had pass through your Lordships’ House. The Children’s and Wellbeing and Schools Bill has 12 days in Committee. This Bill is scheduled to have four days in Committee. Would it be beyond the realms of possibility for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to work with the usual channels to find a way to have more time devoted to the Bill? It does not need to be nine Fridays in the period between January and March; there could be creative ways of giving the Bill time so that it can be fully scrutinised, the safeguards that are required can be put in place and we can do our job of legislating, not just for ourselves and the choice that we might want, but for the most vulnerable in society. At the moment, the Bill is not fit for purpose.