Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made some important points, as have been made by other noble Lords, about the drugs. Given the context of this debate, as we deliberate these amendments and later amendments, it is worth sharing that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, in its important report about the extension of delegated powers in the Bill—of which there are now 48—had specific concerns about substances, drugs and the detail missing from the Bill. In fact, the two specific themes that are relevant are the lack of specification of approved drugs and the lack of regulation of approved substances. The Bill currently uses two delegated powers for something that would usually be described in the Bill, but it is instead in delegated legislation. That perhaps provides some context as to why these amendments have been put forward.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want to deal with probing Amendments 887A and 888A, in my name. Throughout the process there has been a potential clash between what decisions might be made here and what decisions might be made in the devolved nations. In the other place, an amendment was introduced by the sponsor of the Bill as it progressed to extend certain parts of it to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as England and Wales. My colleagues at the other end tried to put an amendment down to probe why this was done. Unfortunately, it was not taken, so the matter was never really debated.

I remind the House that Clause 37 deals with the regulation of approved substances and devices for self-administration. It says that:

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about approved substances”,


and that has the extent of the entire United Kingdom. These regulations also deal with

“the supply or offer for supply, or administration, of approved substances … the transportation, storage, handling and disposal of approved substances”,

and

“keeping records”.

It says provisions must be made

“about the manufacture, importation, preparation or assembly of approved substances … or in connection with the monitoring of matters”

and so on,

“requiring persons specified in the regulations, in specified cases, to give information to the Secretary of State”.

As things stand at the moment, there is no plan by the Northern Ireland Executive to introduce an assisted dying Bill, and there is no Private Member’s Bill currently in the Chamber. Some of these regulations would, in my view, cut across the role that is currently played by devolved Ministers and devolved departments.

This is what I am trying to get at and to probe. It does not, incidentally, confine the extent to Clause 37. In fact, other clauses extend the Bill’s extent as well—Clauses 43, 54, and 56 all apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not understand that. If the noble and learned Lord could enlighten us, that would be most helpful. As I said, they are probing amendments. The point I am trying to tease out in Committee is why that was introduced if it was not in the original Bill and why that extension was made, because, as things stand, there are no plans for an assisted dying Bill in Northern Ireland—not from the Executive and there is no Private Member’s Bill currently.

I totally accept that this Parliament has the right to legislate for the entire United Kingdom, irrespective of devolution. But, at the end of the day, the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about approved substances”.


There is no argument about it—this has to happen. The extent of those regulations would be the entire United Kingdom. Whether Northern Ireland and Scotland want it, it is going to happen, according to this clause. Why is that the case? If there is no assisted dying available—and in many cases, it would be a devolved matter anyway—why are we regulating for the provision of these substances in all parts of the United Kingdom? That is what I want to know, and I will be grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s contribution in the wind-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Assisted dying is about giving somebody a good death. Palliative care is about exactly the same thing.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. However, I said that it was a probing amendment. Other clauses are also extended to Northern Ireland, not simply Clause 37. Because it was just probing, I reserve the right to reflect on that and perhaps come back at a later stage.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is my fault for not dealing with it adequately. Of the two other clauses that apply, one is about advertising and is concerned with advertising into England and Wales. Nobody wants the advertising of assisted death services. We have drafted it on the basis that if you do it from Northern Ireland into England and Wales then there should be a means of enforcing that. The other is detriment to employment rights. Employment law covers the whole of the United Kingdom, which is why this applies to that one as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I think the debate that we have had for the last two and a half hours shows this House in a very positive light. It goes to the very essence of what some of us who are sceptical about the Bill believe to be the most crucial issue: how the Bill will impact the most vulnerable people in society. I say in passing how moved I was by the wonderfully powerful and emotional speech from my noble friend Lady Monckton, as well as by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s speech on his amendment.

Noble Lords might ask a rhetorical question: why are we spending so much time on this particular group? I will offer an anecdote to your Lordships on why it is important that we have spent this time talking about people with disabilities and learning disabilities, and particularly people with Down syndrome. In the summer of 2024, my 91 year-old father was admitted to Peterborough hospital and spent a number of hours in what is euphemistically called “ambulatory care”—which is the back of an ambulance—before being able to access a trolley for a number of hours. As it happens, he was terminally ill. He died a few weeks later from bladder cancer that had metastasised to the rest of his body, but he did not have a diagnosis of terminal illness.

When I reached the hospital, his belongings were adjacent to where he was. At the bottom of the Sainsbury’s carrier bag that held all his personal belongings was a “Do not resuscitate” form that had been filled in. In fact, I think it was what they call—again, euphemistically—a “respect form”. It had been countersigned by a doctor without any discussion with myself or my two brothers. As your Lordships know, none of us are shrinking violets. My brother is a decorated police officer and my other brother is a world-leading scientist and a professor of psychology. We are all quite smart people, but this form had been completed without any discussion with the family.

Indeed, it was alleged that my father had had capacity to sign that form and had agreed to it being countersigned by a doctor. That was a very significant development. I found myself having to front up a difficult conversation with the clinicians in accident and emergency and the geriatrician who was on duty that day. I thought to myself: what if my father had a learning disability? What if he could not read or write properly? What if he was anxious about dealing with bureaucracy and professional people? I thought about how much more difficult it would have been if he did not have a family: if he had not had three sons watching out for him and protecting his interests. How much difficulty would there have been in him challenging the professional bona fides and authority of a clinician—a medic who is well educated and articulate and knows their profession.

I posit that that is the reason we have spent so much time debating these issues. It is not for people such as my father, who, as I say, was terminally ill, but for the many people who have great difficulty: people who are already in a position where they are sad, lonely, depressed, bereft and distraught after a diagnosis of a terminal illness. Those people need assistance in primary legislation to protect their interests, because otherwise no one else will look out for them. That is not to say that those doctors were in breach of the Hippocratic oath, or that they were not compassionate, empathetic, caring and feeling for my father and many thousands of other people in similar situations, particularly old people. Nevertheless, they are busy and stressed and that form was filled in in good faith.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

In the modern NHS—not the NHS of five, 10 or 20 years ago—a patient can be in the back of an ambulance for hours outside the hospital, and then be put in a corridor before they get to a ward; and they might see a consultant on the ward round only once or twice a week for a few minutes, if they are lucky, and may not see the same consultant again for weeks. That fundamental change in the nature of our health service over recent years, with the huge additional pressure and demand, makes these protections all the more important.